Wiktionary:Votes/2007-03/Translations - wiki links clarify 3

Translations - linking to nonexisting FL pages or not

 * Voting on: In translation section - Should translations be linked to foreign language (FL) Wiktionaries even if the FL page doesn't exist, or should translations only be linked if the FL page exist?
 * Vote starts: 25 mars
 * Vote ends: 8 april
 * Vote started by: Dodde
 * Example:


 * Dutch: mislukking
 * Finnish: katastrofi
 * French: avortement, échec


 * Portuguese: aborto
 * Romanian: eşec, insucces, nereuşită

Something to do with the above I guess;.

Summary: Votes has earlier been held regarding links to FL pages in translation sections, if they should exist or not, if the link should consist of a language code or a certain symbol, and if links should be added for internal red links only or internal blue links aswell (as opposed to clicking the blue link first and then the interwikilink for the desired language to the left). Issues has been addressed regarding whether or not FL links should be used in those cases the translation has no corresponding page on the FL Wiktionary, also how it is possible to know whether a page on the FL Wiktionary exists or not and if it is possible to state, should the links be all blue, or should they be red. I am planning to create a script that can perform these tasks on Swedish Wiktionary and the thought is to let this script work on English Wiktionary aswell, a bit like how bots maintain the interwikilinks today. To have the bot switch the colour between red (for non-existing) and blue (for existing), aswell as adding the link to the page on the FL Wiktionary if it exists, and removing (or abstain from adding) the link if the page does not exist on the FL Wiktionary are technically very little difference. The question is. Do we want links to pages on other Wiktionaries only if they exist or no matter if they exist or not. ~ Dodde 06:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion:
 * Of Connels clarification of vote another issue is addressed - consistency regarding how the translations lists are shown in the edit text. My thought was to keep it all simple for the user to add translation, simply adding the translation in as usual, and let the bot create the more "more time consuming and complicated to write"- translation " (or whatever syntax that will be used). This will result not only in more time consuming editing, it will also result in thousands of translations that will be linked to FL Wiktionary pages that not only are non-existent, the entire FL Wiktionary website will not even exist, which will result in an even more useless dead link. Personally I don't see a problem with a mixed appearance of  on one hand and ... on the other hand. But if lack of consistency this way is considered to be a problem, one could suppose another approach of the option 1. Instead of letting ... completely be instead of the, ... can be an additive link only creating the FL link "(en)" and let the  be untouched. This will keep it simple for the user to add translations at the same time as it gives a consistent appearance of the translations sections, and the extra ... will be added by the bot on the existing of the page at the FL Wiktionary. With Option 1, simple adding translations with  will always be fully enough, but with ... being an addition of the (en) the consistence will be kept aswell, instead of letting ... create both the -link and the (en)-link which means slightly less code but gives a less-consistent appearance. I am adding an additional vote (I hope this is ok and I am not breaking any rule) for these two options under Option 1. Voting on either 1A or 1B is an additional vote to Option 1 and and Option 2, and vote on 1A or 1B can be made even if voting on 2. 1A and 1B will only be used if consensus is gained for Option 1. ~ Dodde 13:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this vote should be sent back to WT:GP for additional discussion (from a wider audience than IRC) to figure out things like non-existant FL Wiktionaries, and this vote restarted in a day or two or five? --Connel MacKenzie 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, that is fine with me. Since this will change every and single article on the entire Wiktionary in a pretty pronounced way, and since it will also affect alot of peoples work on this Wiktionary in an even more pronounced way, I welcome more discussion on exactly how the community likes this to work out. If this vote is moved to a discussion, please link to the vote or move all messages to the discussion or how you usually do it. My goal here is to make it as good as possible for everyone, and encourage you to think through how you really like it before we proceed and make the change the other way around go more difficult. If we move this to the discussion I would like the syntax and complexity of the code to be discussed, and what arguments the template should hold or not hold. (also from the point of view what is restraining on the servers and not). ~ Dodde 22:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 1
Interwiki-linking only to existing FL pages
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Dodde 06:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no good reason to link to non-existing pages on other Wiktionaries. Normal IW-links don't link to those, nor should these. The appearance of these red meaningless links also makes the translation section unnecessarily muddly and more difficult to read.
 * Linking to non-existing pages on other Wiktionaries probably means 100%-200% more templates in the article. With hundreds of translations in a single page the numbers become unnecessarily large. This is extra job for the servers to little use. Without the red/blue link option the size of the template can also be held down slightly more. ~ Dodde 06:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 1 A
Let the template handle both links word and (en)

Option 1 B
Let the template handle only the additional link (en)

Abstain 1 A / 1 B

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol abstain vote.svg|20px]] Abstain Dodde 13:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC) I can see good things with both 1 A and 1 B. 1 A will make the appearance less consistent, but will be more condensed/effective and mirror how ... is most commonly used on other Wiktionaries and so far on English Wiktionary aswell. 1 B will make the appearance more conistent and is definitely preferrable to Option 2. ~ Dodde 13:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 2
Interwiki-linking even to non-existing FL pages


 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Connel MacKenzie 11:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC) When I voted for option two on the previous vote, it was with the basic assumption that  /  would leave a blue-colored link to the FL Wiktionary, whether the entry existed there or not.  If Dodde's bot can add a parameter to make them red, when they are not, great.  But the link needs to be there, whether the FL Wiktionary entry exists, or not.  --Connel MacKenzie 11:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I think the result of the previous vote is that all translations in the translations sections should be wrapped in unconditionally.  Not that some should, and some should not, based on obscenely complicated checks to the FL Wiktionary.  The irony of it, is that Dodde is proposing checking the FL XML dumps, and skipping undefined translations.  While perhaps more functional, this would leave the translation sections in an even more inconsistent state than they currently are!  --Connel MacKenzie 11:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Atelaes 19:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Per Connel.
 * As a straw poll, saying "as per Connel" really doesn't help narrow down what you think is best. Dodde really needs to know what the community wants, not what I think the community has previously asked for.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] Support Saltmarsh 06:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)