Template talk:Expand language

improving template

@Mathglot: pinging you at your request. My earlier post: " Right now the link for corresponding article has a switch so that it calls Wikidata information where the article is not specified. I would like the same behavior to happen for the creation of the machine translation link at translate.google.com." Basically, if there is not an article name specified, I want there to be a Google translate link generated based on the title in the foreign language at wikidata. (Currently, if no title is specified, no machine translation link is added.) This behavior already exists elsewhere in the template, just trying to add it for the machine translation as well. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, this might need a feature that is not yet available in order to implement it. I got a response at Module talk:Wd#Titles from other wikipedias to a question I posed there, regarding a subtask that I believe would be necessary in order to implement your request. I'm still looking around for other methods that might work; perhaps Thayts will have an idea. Mathglot (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That one went stale, but I re-upped with this discussion. Adding User:Calliopejen1. Mathglot (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

N'Ko language

After a speedy move to Category:Articles needing translation from N'Ko Wikipedia, the article Madina-Oula using {{expand language}} with parameter |langcode=nqo is still looking for the old category name with diacritic Category:Articles needing translation from N’Ko Wikipedia, see [1].

{{Expand N'Ko}} also exists but is not currently used.

Code nqo or N'Ko language are not listed at meta:Table_of_Wikimedia_projects#Projects_per_language_codes.

@Pppery: are you able to assist, please? – Fayenatic London 12:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that resolves the immediate need. But if somebody uses {{expand language}} again (with |langcode=nqo) rather than {{Expand N'Ko}}, will it still be looking for the old category? – Fayenatic London 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in theory, and Slovenian has the same problem. I think it's better that that bridge be crossed when it happens, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple topic categories

A lot of articles fit into multiple topic categories. For example:

• Articles about athletes could fall into "bio" and "sport".
• Articles about elections could fall into "gov" and "hist".
• Articles about natural disasters could fall into "hist" and "sci".

Editors have different preferences for which articles belong where, and so it is very confusing to people trying to go through the categories. Numberguy6 (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 September 2024

When there are multiple languages, the template says "You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in...". This is wrong, because it refers to multiple articles. In the section of the template code for when more than one language is specified, please replace "the corresponding article" with "the corresponding articles". TTWIDEE (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done @TTWIDEE: --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Guidance for when to remove this template

I would like to use the "Expand" templates (in various languages) to help identify articles that could benefit from the help of a translator, in the context of our work at the non-profit OKA. However, I find it challenging because a large share of articles tagged with this template do not really need to be expanded.

To make this template truly useful, I think it would be better if it was only used when the corresponding other-language article is substantially better than the English article. When the corresponding article is only marginally better, or only better in very selective parts (e.g., contains one section that the EN article misses, despite the EN article being better overall), using this template does more harm than good in my opinion as it dilutes the signal (since almost all Wikipedia articles will have at least one other language for which the article is at least marginally better).

I would suggest putting the bar high. For example, this EN article has less details than this corresponding AR article. However, the EN article is already good enough so it is not clear that there would really be much value in expanding it, the AR article is under-sourced thus would probably not meet the quality requirements from EN Wiki, and the template has been here since 2008 so it is extremely unlikely that someone will work on this since it hasn't happened in the last 16 years. I think that, for articles such as this one, the template should be removed.

Is there any general guidance as to when it is considered ok to delete this template? If we can align on clear criteria, I could task the translators in my non-profit to go through the full backlog and remove it when required.

@Mathglot @Piotrus FYI as I suspect you may have an opinion on this 7804j (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I would support this in principle, but there is also WP:CREEP to be considered. The "guidance" offered in most templates is often nothing more than the opinion of the editor who wrote the documentation for the template, subject to the changes to the doc made by other editors, based on their opinions, so you could say that the guidance is based on consensus, sometimes of a pretty low level, and often most based on WP:SILENCE. (That said, a few templates get a lot of attention, like {{Talk header}}, {{Infobox}}, the structure of the User warning or Welcome templates for example, and the design and documentation of those templates have correspondingly higher levels of consensus.) I would say that {{Expand language}} (and its child templates {{Expand German}}, {{Expand Catalan}}) have a reasonably high level of visibility, and are not very contentious (this Tfd ended with a strong Keep); where there is some contention is about whether to place the template at the top, or bottom of articles (e.g., here, and also at the linked Tfd) but this has not resulted in any change in present behavior.

As far as placing the bar high, I would agree with that as well, but it is still quite subjective, and difficult to codify. Some templates are scrutinized more than others; for example, some editors will place a {{POV}} or {{Disputed}} template on top of an article purely because they disagree with the content, and sometimes when they have raised objections on the Talk page that have been roundly rejected, but that is not a legitimate use of those templates, and they may be removed per WP:WTRMT; having a template that impugns the content of an article based on one person's opinion is generally seen as disruptive. I don't think {{Expand language}} has that level of visibility, and it doesn't argue that the article is deficient in any way, so has a lower bar for inclusion: there is not so much objection to "one editor thinks this article could be improved by expanding it with translations from the Spanish article" as there is to "one editor thinks the content of this article is in dispute".

One possible problem with the proposal is WP:CREEP. Often there is objection to adding more guidance in writing, where common sense or consensus should prevail. So, while I agree with your proposal of how it *ought* to be used, I'm not sure where I stand on the question of whether that should be codified by additional language in the template, and will be interested in what other feedback you get about it. I can see pluses and minuses on both sides.

Regarding your point about the foreign article just being better in one section, see param |section= of the template; in those cases the template should be moved to the section in question, and if it is absent, just add the header by itself, and place the template under it with |section=yes. Finally, there is the issue of whether you want paid OKA editors to be spending time on this, rather than translating articles; I think the goal of removing unneeded templates is a good one, so this is mostly a question of prioritization of editor time, and in this case, OKA funds as well; not something that I can or should have any input on. Mathglot (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

One other solution for a similar situation: when you have an empty article section for which you wish to highlight articles in other languages, you could place a {{Further ill}} template instead, as in Principle of legality in criminal law#Italy, Armed Forces of Belarus#CSTO, or Steam railcar#Sweden. Mathglot (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I mostly agree; the issue is that articles are expanded sometimes but the template is not removed. And yes, sometimes it is added when the differences are not major. But like with all other templates, there is no manpower to verify them. If you want to use this or anything other for any serious project... sadly, you have to verify each one yourself (or through some bot or metric, accepting some errors). For example I use some templates to select articles for my students for various activities, and sigh, we have a lot of false positives (ex. the 'requested image' template, used on talk, is very often left in place in articles that have images - this needs some major cleanup, sigh). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Very true. Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both for the response!

Then I will start removing this template on a few pages such as the example I shared, adding a link to that discussion in the edit descriptions, and see if anyone objects to this approach.

Regarding use of translators time: I agree that it is better for them to focus on translating than fixing templates. However, I'm planning for OKA to be a very long-term project and to scale it even further, so I assume we will eventually run out of "Good content" to translate, so I want to explore other value-adding activities that translators can do on Wikipedia. Cleaning up these translation tags can help with:

1) Identifying real cases where the articles would benefit from being expanded

2) Removing noise, so that these maintenance tags can actually be used by the broader community (as Piotr mentioned, it's currently hard to use these tags as a signal, which is unfortunate). There's also the general concern that the community has of paid editors not helping with the "clean up" activities, so I'm hoping we can increasingly take a role in these maintenance tasks that volunteers don't typically like to do

(on a related note: if you're aware of important simple maintenance tasks that require a lot of manpower and that are neglected in Wikipedia, I'm also happy to look into it as a potential project for OKA, such as the "image requested" one mentioned by Piotr) 7804j (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)