Template talk:Translated page/Archive 1

Archive 1

problem:Norwegian

Think there is still a problem with this template. It links incorrectly to the article in Norwegian. Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem

{{editprotected}} Can someone please remove the |left from the image line? It's unnecessary and is screwing up the template (it is in my browser anyway). Cheers! PC78 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done - hope this solves it. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks! PC78 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tweak?

Could someone replace

[http://{{{1}}}.wikipedia.org{{LOCALURL:{{{2}}}|{{#if:{{{version|}}}|oldid={{{version}}}}}}} {{{2}}}]

with

[http://{{{1}}}.wikipedia.org{{LOCALURL:{{{2}}}|{{#if:{{{oldid|{{{version|}}}}}}|oldid={{{oldid|{{{version}}}}}}}}}} {{{2}}}]

This will make it work with both |version= and |oldid= ({{article history}} and other templates use "oldid=", so it's always my habit to use that. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done - in future, if you use the {{editprotected}} template, it will flag it up for admins to see quicker (fortunately I've still got this page on my watchlist) —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nesting

Out of curiosity, will this template nest/can it nest/and if it can't, can someone make it that it does? When there's multiple uses of the template on the talk page for many different translations, it starts looking REALLY messy. Maybe something like {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} or {{WikiProjectBanners}} could be used for consolidation?

An example -- I've been writing the page for Biecz, and in the process translated text from half a dozen pages on the Polish Wikipedia. And I'm only halfway done and the talk page is a mess. Does some sort of consolidation template already exist and I'm just being particularly obtuse about it? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected for June 15

{{editprotected}} Please replace contents with this:

{{tmbox |type=notice |textstyle=fontstyle: italic; |image=[[File:WP-TranslationProject TwoFlags.svg|50px]] |text=This page has been created, totally or partially, as a translation of the original page « [http://{{{1}}}.wikipedia.org{{LOCALURL:{{{2}}}|{{#if:{{{oldid|{{{version|}}}}}}|oldid={{{oldid|{{{version}}}}}}}}}} {{{2}}}] » from {{#if:{{{1|}}}|the [http://{{{1}}}.wikipedia.org {{language|{{{1}}}}} Wikipedia]|<span style="color: red">'''. Please consult the [http://{{{1}}}.wikipedia.org{{LOCALURLE:{{{2}}}|action=history}} history of the original page] to see a list of its authors up to its transfer and subsequent translation. {{{3|}}}}}<includeonly>{{#IFEXPR:{{#IF:{{{1|}}}|1|0}}+{{#IF:{{{2|}}}|1|0}}+{{#IF:{{NAMESPACE}}|1|0}}=3|{{#ifexist:Category:Pages translated from {{language|{{{1}}}}} Wikipedia|[[Category:Pages translated from {{language|{{{1}}}}} Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}]]|[[Category:Translated pages|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}|[[Category:Pages with incorrect translated page tag|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{doc}}</noinclude>

Wikipedia will no longer be purely GFDL on that day, so we can loosen the attribution now.

and this is the new icon:

ViperSnake151  Talk  22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've tested it in Template:Translated page/sandbox, and made a slight tweak as the curly brackets don't balance in above version. I'll change it on the 15th unless another admin gets in first. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've deactivated the request for now. Please replace it on 15th if Tivedshambo forgets to do it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be material on the article page, too?

Seems to me that a note saying where the article came from belongs on the article page, not just the talk page. No end user is ever going to see the talk page, so they're not going to see this credit information. We used to have a one liner that would appear in the references section - what happened to that? Stevage 00:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Wikipedias in other languages cannot in themselves be considered valid sources - instead, the sources they rely on should be stated instead. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 11#Template:Translated. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, that's a horrible confusion of two policies. Whether or not a Wikipedia article is a "reliable source" is a totally separate question from whether or not we should cite the source of information: a Wikipedia article. It's very important that the source of information be cited. It's also important (but less so) that all information be derived from reliable sources. See the difference?

It's also not a "self-reference" to say that information came from a foreign language Wikipedia article. A self-reference is when the article points out that it itself is part of Wikipedia. Saying that it's based on some other Wikipedia article is different. Stevage 02:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A bunch of improvements

{{editprotected}} I've been playing with this template a little bit, and came up with an improved version. It's here, with a test page here.

It includes:

• Copyedits to text (including a link to the list of language codes that shows up when omitted)
• Provisions to identify a section within an article (so if you translate one section, you can say so, with a link, instead of letting users guess what changed); section
• Provisions to identify the revision at which the translation was added (with link); insertversion
• If you leave out the source article title, but give a version number, it will still link but won't display the title (e.g. version=12345678 → article)
• A small version of the template; small
• All existing behaviour is still supported

A couple questions:

1. Is the small version useful?
2. The linking without title by oldid functionality is there to keep the small version compact; is this still desirable behaviour in the full-sized version? (Right now, they both do the same thing.)

Once we have some feedback about those points, or failing that, a lack of controversy, I'll ask for {{editprotected}}. Once the edits are live, we can fix up the documentation. TheFeds 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it nest? The big version, I mean. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 21:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As in, collapse into a box like with {{WPBannerShell}}? Not exactly. It can be contained within a box like that, but the individual templates won't collapse into single-line versions. It's based on {{tmbox/core}}, which doesn't do this. WikiProject banners—which do collapse—are based on the specialized {{WPBannerMeta/core}} instead.

It would require tacking a couple parameters collapsible & innercollapse into {{tmbox/core}}, by replacing the first line with <table class="plainlinks tmbox {{#ifeq:{{{collapsible}}}|yes|collapsible}} {{#ifeq:{{{innercollapse}}}|yes|innercollapse}} {{#ifeq:{{{small}}}|yes|mbox-small}} {{#switch:{{{type|}}}. I think that would fix it. I'll check in over at that template talk page to see if this is desirable.

If we go that route, we ought to get something similar to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, but which has a proper title. TheFeds 22:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I meant collapsing. That's my biggest pet peeve with this template. If a page shows multiple translation template, plus other banners, it gets really messy really quickly. I think your small versions will help with the talk page clutter. (An example: Talk:Biecz.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 06:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there's too much interest (at the tmbox talk page) in making the changes required for a collapsing box; I just asked over there if there are any further thoughts.

What do you think about making the box small by default? That would be a bit unusual compared to other messages, but would be a way of indicating that this isn't the sort of information that everyone needs to know urgently. (But which still needs to be somewhere.) TheFeds 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for the small-by-default. I agree, on the large scale there are much more important banners (Wikiprojects, DYK, FA-status, etc) that need to be taking up a lot of room. (And it solves the multiple template clutter problem.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 01:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ready to commit changes: Box is now small by default, and not collapsible. I think this is ready to go, and uncontroversial with three in favour none opposed (myself and Mukkakukaku here, and Davidgothberg on the tmbox page). Accordingly, I've placed the {{editprotected}} tag. The code is at User:TheFeds/template/fedstranslated_page; replace the current template with that. (Existing parameters are supported; will update docs with new ones when this goes live.) TheFeds 01:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I find making the small version default a big breaking change. Bearing mind that e.g. WP:PNT requires that this page be used on the talk page (and I imagine the same criteria apply for other translation routes, typically I translate articles that have not ended up at PNT but do it anyway) and that the same talk page often has e.g. WikiProject templates at the top, it just looks stupid. I've no fundamental objection to the small version (e.g. for use on the page itself, but this is a breaking change, i.e. it breaks lots of existing talk pages (making them look really stupid at the top). It would have been better, in my opinion, to have left the big version as the default.

I don't know where this was canvassed for opinion as it came as a total surprise to me. It can't be surprising because one cannot expect someone using a template to be watching it. I imagine it was canvassed elsewhere, but I didn't see it (e.g. it was not, as far as I know, canvassed at WP:PNT). I would still be inclined to argue to make the big version the default, since the number of articles using the big version must have vastly oughtweighed the number of new articles created since this change was put in which are expecting the small version (I've created at least about 10 translations since it was put in, but I don't expect the small version).

In short, I kinda support having the small version, but making it the default is a big breaking change, and those should always be avoided. As far as I can see, there was only one response (from User:Mukkakukaku) advocating small by default. I couldn't find anything at the talk for {{tmbox}}, not even in the archives.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And I will point out that I advocated small-by-default due to the fact that the template is commonly used multiple times, which, when the banner is big, gets out of hand very quickly.

In response to your question of when this was canvassed -- all I can say is that the only reason I knew about it enough to comment was because I had this template on my watchlist due to having asked a question way back when. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 09:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mukkakukaku, I was not suggesting your opinion is not valid. But one opinion doth not a consensus make. Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well ten days later and no comments. So one support makes a consensus and the rest of us put up with it? Where was this canvassed? Please someone tell me. I spend every day translating bits and bobs and all I see is a change for the worse. Not that the small version is bad, but should not break existing pages, which it does with its new default formatting. And no response, as usual, from the people making the (locked) template, I can't even take WP:BOLD and put it back how it was. Very frustrating when one spends hours, or days, translating, and gets no response at all, not even a negative one. Si Trew (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Back when WP:FAOL was still active, this template got a bit more use, and WP:ECHO prefers other templates. (Not that it's very active either.) If you make a new section and paste the code to default the template back to the large version, then tag it with a {{editprotected}}, it'll get changed by an administrator. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

the template half-fails from https pages

{{editprotected}}

This version of the template (as of 23:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)) half-fails on the https (secure) version of the en.wikipedia, because the template has partly hardwired URLs.

Example of problem

Example: Go to the secure wiki version of the template: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Template:Translated_page and try clicking on the Examples, for Dassault... and ICE 1 on the fr and de wikipedias respectively. The URLs generated by the template are http://fr.wikipedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Dassault_Super-%C3%89tendard&oldid=45069858 and http://de.wikipedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=ICE_1&oldid=45565777, neither of which exist.

This is only a half-failure, because both are redirected within 5 seconds to the correct URLs. This is a nice example of robustness (thinking like a human instead of a robot :) by mediawiki software, but all the same, we probably shouldn't rely on it. Otherwise we will lose our usefulness and will have to just hope that the robots are kind to us (i.e. respect Asimov's fundamental robot laws...) when they take over. Drones above Afghanistan and Pakistan clearly violate Asimov's law, but i guess they're not (yet) completely autonomous. Anyway...

Hint of origin of problem

Some of the source code of this template is Consult the [http://{{{1}}}.wikipedia.org ..., which fails for the secure wiki URLs. See the above example URL.

Wild guess at a solution

Sorry that i'm not good enough at mediawiki template programming to suggest the correction. Maybe something like

Consult the [[:{{{1}}}: ...

might be the most modular way to go. After all, this is what works for language interwiki links among the wikipedias.

Boud (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a problem that I hadn't considered when writing that code. Unfortunately, because we need to hit specific revisions (identified by version number) or the history page itself, a regular [[ ]] link wouldn't work. (They will correctly go to the current version, for both http and https sessions.)

There is a solution, in that {{localurl}} and {{localurle}} can take prefixes for language (but not both project and language)—meaning we don't need to hardcode the http://{{{1}}}.wikipedia.org{{localurle:...; we can use {{localurle:{{{1}}}:... instead. For http and https users, this will redirect you to the nonsecure other-language Wikipedia server, which seems consistent with the way interwiki links usually work on the https server.

I tested these changes against the https server at User Talk:TheFeds/template/sandbox3, and everything seems to work better now. So I think we can make this change uncontroversially.

Edit Protected Page: I've implemented the above for all of the formerly-http-only links at User:TheFeds/template/fedstranslated page. Replace this template with its contents. TheFeds 21:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

{{editprotected}} I notice that there's an effort at Wikipedia:Category suppression to standardize category parameters; this sounds like a straightforward best practice. To implement that in this template, I've set up a tracking category (Category:Pages using deprecated category parameters (translated page)), so that we can see what's using the cat and category parameters. Once that's populated, it should be easy to convert them to the recommended format (which uses nocat).

Edit Protected Page: In order to make this work, template code needs to be replaced with User:TheFeds/template/fedstranslated page (again). That will populate the category and enable the new categorization parameter.

Once the conversion of individual instances is completed, there will be another {{editprotected}} to remove the deprecated code and tracking category code from the template.

By the way—this was prompted by {{Tlrow}}, which invokes category suppression when nocat is used. By inserting {{translated page}} in Wikipedia:Template messages/Translation, the existing template erroneously adds that page (and WP:TC which transcludes it) to Category:Pages with incorrect translated page tag (because it doesn't support the nocat parameter). This little overhaul ought to fix all that in a robust way. TheFeds 01:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Jake Wartenberg 02:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The category turned out to have no unexpected examples—so everything has been updated to use nocat=true when necessary.

There is one exception, which will fix itself. At Wikipedia:Template messages/Translation, {{tlrow}} is invoked—and this is transcluded into Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. This template automatically passes |nocat=true|category={{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{category|}}}}}|no|no}}|categories=no, which works, but which also trips the temporary categorization routine with category. Once we remove support for the old parameters, this won't have any effect, and it will remove itself from the category.

Also, the template is being confused by the removal of cat and category in the documentation page and in my sandbox, and is misinterpreting that lack of a parameter as an instruction to categorize. That will go away once that temporary code is removed (verified with User:TheFeds/template/fedstranslated page).

Edit Protected Page: Remove the tracking category and old categorization method code (see below) from the template. At that point, feel free to speedily delete Category:Pages using deprecated category parameters (translated page) (G6+G7).

<!--begin tracking category-->{{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[Category:Pages using deprecated category parameters (translated page)]]|{{#if:{{{category}}}||[[Category:Pages using deprecated category parameters (translated page)]]}}}}{{#if:{{{cat|}}}|[[Category:Pages using deprecated category parameters (translated page)]]|{{#if:{{{cat}}}||[[Category:Pages using deprecated category parameters (translated page)]]}}}}<!--end tracking category--><!--begin old categorization method-->{{#ifeq:{{{category|{{{cat|}}}}}}|no||{{#ifexpr:{{#if:{{{1|}}}|1|0}}+{{#if:{{{2|}}}|1|0}}+{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|1|0}}=3|{{#ifexist:Category:Pages translated from {{ISO 639 name {{lc:{{{1}}}}}}} Wikipedia|[[Category:Pages translated from {{ISO 639 name {{lc:{{{1}}}}}}} Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}]]|[[Category:Translated pages|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}|[[Category:Pages with incorrect translated page tag|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}<!--end old categorization method-->

The template documentation has been updated to reflect this (advises the use of nocat and none of the others).

(There may be another {{editprotected}} request once {{cat handler}} has solidified a little bit, in order to further standardize the categorization routines.) TheFeds 17:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Looks like you're doing a good job here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

template

Hum, it looks ridiculously small on the talk page. And nothing is said about the licences, the list of authors etc... --Lilyu (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks ridiculously small when I use my ridiculously huge monitor with ridiculously huge resolution, but at 1024x768 it looks fine. And the whole point was to have the small version of the template be able to "float" right so as to not clutter up the talk page with less-important banners.

I do agree with you about the licensing. But even the old version never had a list of authors. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 14:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see my talk in the section above (#A bunch of improvements). Regardless of its merits this is a breaking change, and I am always wary of them. In this case, I think for good reason: it has broken loads of perfectly well laid out talk page headers and just looks stupid. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I will just add, though, in case I seem excessively grumpy, I do agree with the above poster that on the whole it's a good job, at least this template is actively maintained, documented, etc. Well done. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it looks ridiculous (look at Talk:Karl Lieffen, for example). Why is aligned off to the right? I'd say it's more important than the project tags and should be left-aligned as a minimum, and the same width as other banners. Lugnuts (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change: default large

I am proposing a simple change for the template, to default the size of the banner to the large one, with the "small" parameter optional. (Currently the reverse is true). I have made a test-template here -- feel free to modify or tweak it. Comments? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change placement of template from talk page to article page

I propose to change the placement of the "translated page" template from the translated article's talk page to the translated article's page itself, as it is done at the Greek Wikipedia. This would motivate editors more to translate articles from other languages into English. Cogiati (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. On Czech wikipedia, we put the template at the beginning of the references section and we also accentuate the importance of the oldid (if the id isn!t set, the template will says in big red letters).--MASHAUNIX 21:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No. As per WP:SELFREF, this should not be on the article page. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 17:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no self-reference problem with simply informing readers on the article page that all or part of the article was translated from another language Wikipedia. We can do this in a way that simply provides an FYI without proclaiming the validity of the source. Even if we didn't use this template, we could at least put a link to the other language's article in the References section. Eric ^talk 12:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• None of the examples given in SELFREF have anything to do with what this template is for. I'm totally in favour of having it on the article page; it's a useful form of verification. Ironholds (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• There should be two versions of this template: One for the talk page that will be there "forever" and one on the article page for newly-translated pages that have not been significantly edited since the initial translation. This "article" template should be worded something like {{New unreviewed article}} but with text saying "if the current version is significantly different than the translated version [include a link that will do the diff] please remove this template." This "article template" should not be used in conjunction with {{Rough translation}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good ideas. On the "new, unreviewed" one, it might be worth having a parameter to indicate if the initial article consists essentially of an interwiki translation. Eric ^talk 17:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Partial translation

There should be a version of this for when an article has only been translated in part from another article, but there still could be more to translate over.----occono (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Undoing small-by-default change

While this change is now two years old, it was never properly discussed, has been opposed a couple of times and causes layout problems on all sorts of pages. I'm going to remove this (and the corresponding {{{large}}} attribute) in future unless there's good reason to believe this is best practice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

imported parameter

Can somebody sync the sandbox with the actual version? I added the 'imported' parameter for being it easier to determine if an article history was already imported to fulfill the CC-BY-SA. (see also User talk:Graham87/Import#translation import). mabdul 12:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Example:

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia Projects indicates that only a link is necessary. Why would we import a possibly large number of foreign-language revisions to clutter our article history? Anomie⚔ 17:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Format

Resolved

As can be seen on Talk:Wulfsen horse burial, this template sits uneasily with other, common, talk page templates such as project banners. It would be better if it used the same, centred, format (or at least an option to make it so). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I found it. |small=no. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility

This template needs to use a lang attribute on a span or other element containing the non-English article title. We should also get rid of the deprecated <font color = "red"> markup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Document updated to provide Hebrew example

I had difficulty using the 3rd parameter with a Hebrew translation (see: Talk:Elly Kenner). I blame my computer's input-method-editor. As a work-around, I had to put the source last. I updated this template's documentation page accordingly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove the guillemets

I'd like to propose removing the guillemets (« and ») from this template. They're an unusual punctuation mark at the best of times, MOS:QUOTEMARKS doesn't mention them at all, and they add nothing to this template anyway.

For example, using User:me_and/Translated page for the three examples given in the docs, we get what you see on the right.

Given they're presumably there for a reason, I wanted to see if there were any objections before whacking a {{editrequest}} on here.

—me_and 13:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested, they were added in the original version of this template, and appear to have never been touched since. According to their user page, the original creator, Croquant, is French, which may explain why they seemed like a good idea to them. —me_and 13:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Support removal or replacement with English-standard quotation marks. Prefer outright removal. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, please remove the guillemets from this template. Either find the characters manually in the text (there should be two of both « and »), or just copy in the source from User:me_and/Translated page.

Thanks!

—me_and 17:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Done I removed them; I also removed the   which were adjacent. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Revise template text?

As it stands, the template text "This article contains a translation of X from Y" seems to imply that the complete, entire article X from source Y has been translated and inserted verbatim into the target-language article. I would guess that this is rarely the case: oftentimes only portions of the foreign-language articles are needed/appropriate; knowledgeable translators may revise, expand, and annotate on the fly as they translate; other editors will almost certainly make major changes after translated material has been introduced, making the one article unrecognizable as a translation of the other; etc.

Therefore, I'd suggest we change the template text to something like: "This article contains material translated from X at Y."--Lemuellio (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Editrequest

Please add a "|date=" parameter. This should accept the date the translation was performed.

This can be accomplished by changing

 }}{{{3|}}}

to

 }}{{{3|}}} {{#if:{{{date|}}}|<small>( {{{date|}}} )</small>}}

-- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The information is already encapsulated by pointing at the edit of the translastion which obviously has the date and time of translation. Why would you want to denormalize that? If for convencience, do you have any examples of cases where it isn't obvious? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, but it doesn't look like there is a consensus to make this change now. Perhaps you could advertise this discussion somewhere that is watched by more people, like one of the Village Pumps? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Parameter for source section

It would be useful to have a |sourcesection= parameter for indicating that the translated material was one particular section of the source page. — Scott • talk 10:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Use "3=" for now. If you feel comfortable doing so, make a sandbox copy so we can discuss it and make it happen. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Take the name from wikidata

Hello, It would be good to take the name of translated article from wikidata. --Alex Blokha (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a nice idea, but it relies on the name of the translated article never changing, which may not hold. —me_and 12:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to WP:TRANSLATION

Please link to WP:TRANSLATION in the template's text as follows: "This template contains a translation of an... etc." This would help people find the translation procedures when they see this notice of past translations on the talk page. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

e.g., from Draft talk:George Wickham: "This page was edited to contain a total or partial translation of George Wickham from the French Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors." --110.20.234.69 (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Text proposal

The current text of the template could suggest that the complete article from the other language has been translated. I think this will not always be the case. My suggestion is to change the text "This article contains a translation of ...." into "This article contains a translation or part of a translation of ..." Ellywa (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 February 2016

[[Italo Salizzato] ]/ Biografia Italo Salizzato Ermo casella (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Qed237 (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Two problems

The first is that {{Translated sub-cat}} gives an error on Category:Pages translated from Simple English Wikipedia. I have no clue how to fix it.

Also, can something be done to fix the error produced when the English Wikipedia is the one cited as the source of the translation? See Draft talk:Gastronomía_kurda (edit | draft | history | links | watch | logs) for an example.--Auric talk 11:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

possible bug with "section="

I think the "section=" does not work: nothing is displayed when it is used. Veverve (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:COPYRIGHT of interest to this template

Please see the discussion at WT:COPY#Attribution in a case of deleted history from a cross-wiki translation for a case which may possibly affect the documentation or coding of this template. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Size of template - revisited

I note that @Thumperward: in 2011 said they intended to change the template to default to a larger size, the format used by all the other templates I know of which sit on talk pages (including the ones like {{copied}} which are analagous in explaining the article's history and attribution). And then @Thumperward: in 2012 said "It would be better if it used the same, centred, format...", and found the "|small=no" option to make it so on a one-off basis (thanks for that info). But it still defaults to a little box at the right hand side of the page.

So now, again, I suggest that this template be amended so that by default it is the same format as all the related templates. Compare this with this version. I suggest that the second, with "|small=no", is more informative as well as more visually attractive.

And having made it the same format, it could usefully be added to the group of templates listed at bullet point 14 of WP:TALKORDER (ie {{Copied}}, {{Split from}}, {{Split to}}, {{Merged-from}}, {{Merged-to}}).

What discussion is needed to make this change? PamD 17:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I concur. --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

fwiw the thread for this is #Undoing small-by-default change and was an intended revert of a disputed change. Full-size was the original and the change to small by default was through an {{editprotected}} which was pushed too quickly. See the various protests up-page from 2009. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Thumperward: Thanks. So what happened after your 2011 announcement that you were going to make the change? I don't see any opposition on this page, but nor do I see a change in the template which was then reverted. Is the time now right to make the change? PamD 22:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

My hypothesis is that I got distracted by some shiny tinfoil or something and forgot about it. Wouldn't be the first time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support – As it is, I always override the default when I use it. Should restore wide as default. Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I also always override this, and have wondered why this template is different from practically every other talk page banner. Apparently the answer is this short conversation between two editors in 2009:

What do you think about making the box small by default? That would be a bit unusual compared to other messages, but would be a way of indicating that this isn't the sort of information that everyone needs to know urgently. (But which still needs to be somewhere.) TheFeds 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd go for the small-by-default. I agree, on the large scale there are much more important banners (Wikiprojects, DYK, FA-status, etc) that need to be taking up a lot of room. (And it solves the multiple template clutter problem.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 01:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either proposition raised there is true. Maintaining attribution is arguably more important than somewhat-arbitrary content assessments, links to archives and policies, etc. And having one box of many awkwardly off to the side adds to visual clutter rather than reducing it. In any case since 2009 it's become the norm to have lots of headers at the top of talk pages, and I don't think making this large by default will have an adverse effect. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: As the one who championed the original change, I concur with Joe's observation that since 2009 it has become uncontroversial for there to be many wide banners at the top of talk pages, and that several of the objections to clutter have basically ceased. At the time, various small banners (like for talk page archive contents) were quite commonly seen, and people argued more about the order and existence of the banners. However, let me raise a few points for further discussion:
  1. I still maintain this template isn't really important enough to be at the top of the talk page. I agree that having a record of attribution is more important than identifying whatever wikiprojects, but contend that the average talk page reader seeing that record is less important. I was therefore hoping that it would be used last or near the bottom of the stack of banners. (But this can be addressed separately by generally recommending that small banners follow the large banners.)
  2. When the banner is small and last (or among other small banners), it flows opposite the contents box, on the right edge of the screen. When there is no contents box, it flows with the text. We should reach an explicit consensus whether this is stylistically desirable nowadays.
  3. In the relatively rare case that there are numerous translations, the clutter issue potentially has some traction. (A multi-instance banner could potentially solve this. If I recall correctly, coding something like that wasn't a high priority at the time. We could discuss whether that is of interest.)
  4. The small format allows convenient use in a talk page section, as in Talk:Computational_complexity_theory#Translate_German_WP_article?. (I don't know if there's a consensus to approve/disapprove this usage as a general rule.)

TheFeds 10:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

By the way, as a meta-observation, the whole reason this template exists is because MediaWiki doesn't (as far as I know) provide a method to link and tabulate oldids (source and destination) when a derivative work is created. One might argue that our efforts at improving this template are lipstick on a pig, and the elegant resolution is to instigate a feature request at WP:VPT. (I know which one will be more effort, so I am not offended by a decision to continue here nonetheless.) TheFeds 10:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

One more thing: I did articulate the order-of-templates rationale in this edit to the documentation. I think the rationale for not putting it in a section (don't want to misplace it when archiving) is good. TheFeds 12:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Param section still does not work

First noted by User:Veverve above, it's nearly a year later and |section= still does not work in the default, small version of the template. A counterexample can be seen on the /doc page, in the Template:Translated page#Examples section. That example is repeated here:

{{Translated page|fr|Dassault Super-Étendard| version=45069858|insertversion=319465919|section=Accidents and incidents}} produces:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Mauris semper dapibus lectus, sit amet dapibus justo dignissim a. Vivamus ac diam in nulla tempus eleifend ac quis eros. Vivamus felis ex, semper id finibus non, gravida quis ex. Aliquam eleifend feugiat nisl non volutpat. Integer vitae dolor quis eros sodales molestie at vel mi. Suspendisse et felis leo. In eleifend et magna et convallis. Vivamus diam augue, blandit vitae dui sit amet, finibus fringilla mauris. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Sed ut mi ac ante finibus euismod quis ac purus. Suspendisse consectetur, tellus vitae viverra tristique, quam ipsum facilisis purus, a porta sem nibh eu dui.

Here's the wide version of the same example, which works okay:

{{Translated page|fr|Dassault Super-Étendard| version=45069858|insertversion=319465919|section=Accidents and incidents|small=no}} produces:

Before someone objects that there isn't room to include the wide-version boilerplate text about The section "Accidents and incidents" of this template was edited ... in the small version, it isn't necessary to. All that's needed, is to wikilink this article and include the section name in the url fragment so it goes there.

Note also that this template currently does not have a test case page: Template:Translated page/testcases, which is probably how this snuck through in the first place. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

With regard to your suggestion "[a]ll that's needed", if I understand you correctly, that's already what it does. Is it that the word "contains" is not where you are looking for the section link in the small version? (Examine Talk:Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard, where the example is from, and note the link on that word appears to take you to the appropriate section in the article.) I just verified that the code {{#if:{{{section|}}}|[[{{SUBJECTSPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}#{{{section}}}|contains]]|contains}} is unchanged except for whitespace. Or, is it that because the documentation example has a parent page which is not the article, the section link can't resolve? (Understandably, there is no Template:Translated_page#Accidents_and_incidents.)

I can also confirm that the reason the small version has different (briefer) text is for compactness.

Also, I think it actually predates testcases existing as a default subpage. (If not, I guess I take responsibility for not knowing how to use it at the time I requested some edits to this template years ago.) Note that there was some testing in the userspace sandboxed version, as documented in the talk page above. TheFeds 11:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Or, is the issue that the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translated_page&oldid=319465919 does not point to a section? I think we can solve this with #Accidents_and_incidents in the URL, like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Translated_page&oldid=319465919#Accidents_and_incidents. (Note that because these are oldid queries, they actually completely ignore the page title. It would be the same if title=anything.) But I don't think this is what you are asking, because this behaviour is equivalent for both large and small banner versions.

In any event, I'm not sure whether sections in the oldid link are desirable. Is it generally understood that the relevant derivative work is the whole page identifed by the oldid (et seq.), whether or not a section is also indicated? TheFeds 12:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Should we have a feature for multiple version/insertversion parameters?

Sometimes, I don't put in all of the translation I do in one edit, as I tend to do it in several edits, so in version and insertversion, do you think we should add more params for each? I think this might be helpful for those who do it this way, although I really don't know how many editors actually do that. Actually_NeverHappened02 (a place to chalk | a list of stuff i've done) 15:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Date parameter?

Other source attribution templates (ie. {{merged from}}, {{copied}}, etc) have a date parameter. This would seem to be useful, so that one can peruse the revision history around the time of translation, and see what happened to the material as the page evolved. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to template uw-translation

A proposed template change to alter the message emitted by template {{uw-translation}} is being discussed at Template talk:Uw-translation. Your feedback is welcome at the discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)