Template talk:checktrans

=Documentation=

The text of the template explains itself. Follow the embedded link for more information.

See also which is a shortcut for this template and the top of a collapsible  table.

=Discussion=

Wording
 Any numbering associating translations with definitions is unreliable or incorrect.


 * As someone who's spent large amounts of time cleaning up translations properly only to have a lazy editor come along a couple edits later, assume without basis that the whole thing is wrong, and invalidate it all with I'd strongly prefer this be reworded.  I would change that "is" to "may now be" and add something like:
 * Even non-native speakers can help verify numbered translations by reviewing the article's history, using the number to match the translation to the appropriate definition at the time the translation was added.
 * ... but I can't think of a more concise way to say that, and the thing is huge enough as it is. —Muke Tever 23:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole thing needs a rewrite, pointing only to either Translations to be checked or Category: Check translations or the sub-cat Category: Translations to be checked and more detailed instructions spelled out in whichever of those places is deemed best.  --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, a description/example of how to cleanly remove "{{ttbc|" needs to be there also. --Connel MacKenzie T C 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As stated in the BP, I think Translations to be checked should fulfil that purpose. In this case, this template would point to that page. Whatever rewrite there is, the template should certainly keep adding pages to Category:Check translations. &mdash; Vildricianus 20:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RFDO discussion: February–April 2014
Should be orphaned and deleted. All instances of:
 * 
 * * Language: 
 * * Tongue: 

Should be replaced with:
 * 
 * * Language: 
 * 
 * * Tongue: 
 * 

--WikiTiki89 04:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't we keep ttbc as part of the regular translation table now? Then we can get rid of the -top, -mid and -bottom templates as well. 04:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We still still need a separate section because for polysemous terms, you might not know which definition a given translation applies to, which I think was the original purpose of the checktrans tables. --WikiTiki89 04:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikitiki as et al perform the vital function of grouping translation requests that do not obviously correspond to any existing sense.
 * I have never been sure of the best way to draw attention to translations that may not correspond to the current wording of any current definition. Separate tables or separate  tables?
 * allows one to retain the gloss under which the translations were presumably added. But with the JS to accelerate adding translations, would make it too easy to add translations based on a superseded gloss. :::I hope that the JS does not work for . But  also does not display any gloss, so creators of checktrans tables would have to insert comments and users would need to pay attention to such comments, which can more easily become obsolete than a normally visible gloss. DCDuring TALK  12:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, replace and delete. 95.148.116.152 12:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Orphaning in progress. Should be quick. — Keφr 13:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Orphaned in mainspace. There are still some transclusions in userspace, and in help pages. The latter just need to be updated, not sure about the former. — Keφr 14:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleted; help pages were updated (although they too seem RFD-worthy of sorts...). Userspace transclusions were left untouched: users may fix them however they find appropriate. — Keφr 21:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)