Template talk:Expand language/Archive 1

Protection template
Please add  to this template. The protection template used to be on the documentation page, but because that same documentation page is used as well by pages that are not protected, this is the best way. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ The better way to do this, is to create a 3rd template, have the pure text there, and transclude this text into /doc as well as other pages. Remember that /doc is also often used for interwiki. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeated request. I fix protection templates all the time (at least 15-25 a day), and have never heard of this Bad Idea before. Creating a new template for something as standard as a protection template... Debresser (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Perhaps TheDJ was talking about the templates which use this template, although I couldn't really follow ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Neither could I completely. Debresser (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Small date
As usual for templates with datestamps, it should be small here (as it is for Template:Expand language (non-Latin script)). Find the following: Replace with: And you're done! Gary King ( talk ) 03:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Article page or talk page
The description on this template says to use on the talk page not the article. Is there consensus discussion for that somewhere? No discussion on this talk page. I noticed on other langauge wiki's that similiar templates are places on the article. If it was on the article is would attract more translators as well as indicate to the reader(who maybe bi-lingal) that more information is found in an other language wiki. SunCreator (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be consensus, but the TfD close suggested that it be always used on the article, not the talk page. --Trevj (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the value of these pages in improving Wikipedia content and I've read through the TfD that you kindly linked to above. However, from what I can see this is a message wholly aimed at contributors rather than readers, so I do not think it is right to give it the prominence that the current top of article hatnote gives this template. I would like to suggest an RFC on this topic to get wider views on the following options:


 * 1) Keep the template as it is
 * 2) Keep the template on article pages but remove the hatnote so it only retains the categorisation
 * 3) Convert these templates into talk page templates and move them over.

Many thanks. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this template adapts itself to placement either on the talk page or the article page, so no "conversion" would be necessary. I think that this template is generally best suited to the article page, at least when the article is undeveloped--even if it is aimed at contributors, so are tags like "wikify" that are uncontroversially on the article page. The tag also has the benefit of pointing (even monolingual) readers to an additional source of useful information and provides a link to bot translation, so this is useful even to non-editors. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Expand language is currently in a subcategory of . Is it therefore to be treated per MOS:LEAD as a maintenance tag? (I've placed a Pls template on the talk page of WP:TMAIN for the benefit of those who may otherwise miss this RfC.) -- Trevj (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Question. I'm probably out of my depth here, but doesn't the message:


 * already suggest that daughter templates should be placed on the article page? And if the usage instructions for the daughter templates read:


 * To mark an article, tag it with:


 * doesn't that also mean that the template should go on the article page? Or am I just being dense? I've always placed these on the article page, am disturbed to find that was wrong. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You're right about the daughter templates (which don't have that notice). I think you're being neither dense nor wrong but there did seem to be opposing opinions previously expressed and SunCreator's question remained unanswered -- Trevj (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC).
 * OK, that's reassuring, thank you. Question 2 is: where does it say "to use on the talk page not the article"? Because I've def missed that message. For what little it is worth, my 2p. is that these remarkably useful templates should go on the article, as most of the usage instructions suggest. If there's an instruction somewhere that says to put them on the talk page, let's change it in line with the others. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar
Currently reads(for example): Please expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in 'Spanish' Wikipedia.

Consider amending for grammar to say:
 * Please expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in the 'Spanish' Wikipedia


 * Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Link to talk page
editprotected

When used in other namespaces than the main namespace, the link to the talk page is incorrect. See WikiProject Accessibility/What is accessibility? for a live example. I suggest to replace: must be added to the talk page by must be added to the |talk page Kind Regards, Dodoïste (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have made the suggested change, and it now produces the correct link in a user space page in which I have tested it, which it didn't before. Unfortunately, however, it still does not work correctly in the Wikipedia space page given above as an example. Can anyone come up with a better solution? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is working fine in the example above. Just a caching issue. My preferences > Gadgets > User interface gadgets > Add a "*" tab to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache when followed.
 * Thanks! :-) Dodoïste (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright compliance
Why must the tag be added to ensure copyright compliance? Articles are CC-BY-SA Wikipedia, translated or not. Just off hand this seems incorrect and should be removed. Int21h (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to credit the original authors to comply with CC-BY-SA (at a minimum, a link to the original article is required, per the statement above the "save" button: You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we have this template?
Our policy is not to use Wikipedia itself as a source for Wikipedia articles. In practise people do copy material from one article to another, as a shortcut way of building an article, though this is not the recommended way of working. Our preferred model is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement. While people may wish to shortcut the preferred model and utilise material from other language Wikipedias, I am unsure that we should be urging or encouraging people to do this, especially when they do not themselves know the language of the other Wikipedia, and are being instructed to use Google Translate. When I have come upon this template and examined the linked article I have all too frequently found that the the foreign language article was not adequately and/or usefully sourced. Our policy does encourage that we first use English sources.

As this template appears to be running counter to good advice, good practise, and at least two core policies, is there a value to keeping it?  SilkTork  *Tea time 18:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion here.  SilkTork  *Tea time 18:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Other language Wikipedias are a rich source of information that might otherwise not be available in English and we should encourage their translation alongside the creation of articles from scratch. Often this is the catalyst for developing and enhancing articles on English Wikipedia. Whether such a translation comes with adequate sources or not will speak for itself. Those that are not, get tagged and spur us on to seek suitable references. I don't think this contravenes the spirit of our policies and it certainly supports the goal of adding to the sum of human knowledge.
 * Whether this tag is useful or not is a separate question. I am not a huge fan of tags, but I have found it useful in flagging up to me that there is more information available on another Wikipedia which I can then choose to translate.
 * You highlight some poor or risky practices such as slavish use of translation software and I agree that should be discouraged. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a template like this is valuable. Particularly given a sub-stub article, it's helpful to know that another language wikipedia article exists with considerably more information.  However, I think that the guidance it gives suggesting to translate foreign-language wikipedia content is misguided.  Perhaps the wording could be changed to suggest that an author might be able to source information through the other language article, rather than from it PRB (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with PRB. What about the following?
 * This article may be expanded with information sourced from the |corresponding article in the |Language abbreviation not recognized by template! Wikipedia.
 * -- Trevj (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Trevj's wording is even more confusing because it suggests that the foreign-language article is itself a source for content (as opposed to a source for wording, which must be sourced to another reliable source at least eventually). PRB - I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting. What this template is aiming to encourage is precisely the translation of language from foreign-language Wikipedia articles that are better than ours. (Easier to translate than to write from scratch.) Ideally, the foreign-language article would be sourced to other reliable sources, which is what the caveat in the [show] area is about (don't translate garbage). Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Elegance of template
Is it possible to collapse part of the template, so that only about half its height appears on article pages. The way it is, it really produces a visual problem in the pages it is placed. I mean, if someone wants to help, he is bound to look for "more information" and expand it. But for the avererage reader, it is a downer. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 14:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Once again the whole point them is that they are intentionally built this way. If they are ugly and unsightly, the chance are somebody is more willing to quickly translate and remove the ugly tag. By prettifying it we remove the incentive. That said, it is surely possible to shrink the lower part. The problem in doing so though is that it hides the attribution and translation commands which many will ignore.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I never thought about this :) Hoverfish Talk 14:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that they are a little too thick and I personally hate tags on articles. But somehow we need to get content transwikied in thousands if not millions of articles.. These templates definitely need to exist for this purpose, of course shrinkable templates is probably a more desirable option but I fear that some will ignore the translate commands...♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

There is this blind man sitting on a street with a cardboard that says "I am blind". So everybody passes him by. Then there is this woman that takes his carboard and writes something on it and she leaves and then the money starts pouring in. It turns out she wrote "It's a beautiful day. I can't see it." -or something close. The thing is, I am totally off when it comes to public relations and semantics, but I can tell there are some ways to tantalize the eyes and make people want to help. So, untill we find some public relation guru, I can't suggest a more efficient scheme. Hoverfish Talk 15:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The template should be placed on the talkpage. It is not alerting readers of the condition of the article nor of possible flaws, but proving a possible source for development of the article. The template is not essential, and should not appear on the article space in any size or shape. The template does run close to the depreciated Expand, but can be seen as closer in spirit and intention to the find template, and should be treated as such. Hopefully editors will gradually move the template over to the talkpage - or, of course, check out the foreign language article and its sources, and see what can be usefully used in the en.wiki article.  SilkTork  *Tea time 15:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No, absolutely not, it completely defeats the object of them placing them in the talk pages and a direct threat to article growth. We need content translated from other wikipedias and sources found to support them. This will kill the transwiki project. Who looks in the talk pages of every article they read or approach? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the placement of the template really should depend on the state of the article. Where an article is a tiny stub, it makes sense to have this - both because you're not defacing a good article, and so readers are clued in to the fact that if they need information, they can refer to the google-translated version of a foreign-language article. On a well-developed article that could still be improved, I think it's fine for the template to be on the talk page.  19:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dr B. Unless it's on the article page it's not going to be seen and acted on. I speak from experience. However if we want it to be less intrusive but still visible, it could be made more like a stub and placed at the bottom maybe. --Bermicourt (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep the template

 * Keep. The template is functional.Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add "the" before " ", to fix grammar problems. Sceptre (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, so Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Anglocentric symbol
The use of the hiragana in the symbol for translation from other latin-alphabet-languages (such as French, German, or Spanish) strikes me as strongly anglocentric -- with the subliminal message "it's not English -- it's moonspeak". Suggestion: Use the two-letter country codes to symbolize the languages to be translated to and from instead (or use a flag to sybolise the non-English source language). Pgoergen (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I think it is normal to be anglocentric in translation requests, considering the point is to bring everything into English. The message to me is "it's not English -- it's another language that we need to translate into English." I also like the uniformity of all the translation banners having the same icon (just as other cleanup banners are consistent across uses). Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood: anglocentric part is not the "A" for English (and the request for translation to english) but the Hiragana for ANY other language (even those using latin letters). The version where the respective flag or country code would represent the respective source lange would provide a similar degree of uniformity. The original version of the symbol even states it is meant for "translation from to her alphabet to latin". (You are in fact displaying the same ignorance towards differences in other languages that I pointing out in the first place.) Pgoergen (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would by the way have less objections against a symbol made up of a nonexistant character and an "A" instead of a Japanese character and an "A"Pgoergen (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not right
We shouldn't say "Click [show] on the right for instructions"; the "show" link may not be on the right for all users; and right and left are irrelevant to blind editors hearing the page read to them by assistive software. (I wrote more about this issue on my blog.) How can we reword this? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming we aren't changing the entire collapse box infrastructure, I don't think this is a problem that is really worth worrying about. We could just remove "on the right", but that makes it marginally less useful for most users, but I don't think that it significantly improves usability for people hearing it aurally or using a strange layout where it happens to be elsewhere. I imagine that a blind reader knows to disregard cues like "on the right." On the other hand, if we could make it so actually clicking the word "show" expanded the collapse box, it would improve things for everyone. (Because as it is, the show box on the right is kind of clunky.)  I'm not sure how easy it would be to recode the show boxes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Template placement
Should the templates in Category:Expand by language Wikipedia templates be used in the article talk pages instead of in the articles. My main concern is that when such a template is used it often will be years before the translation is done and in the mean time these templates are cluttering up the articles they are on without any additional benefit. – Allen4names 05:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should only be used on the talk pages. I've never even seen one used on the article itself and would immediately move it to the talk page if I did. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  12:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - The limited response to this RFC has left me concerned that consensus for the change I have proposed will not be established by the time this RFC ends. If there are fewer than seven users commenting on this at the time it ends it should be closed as insufficient discussion to establish consensus. – Allen4names 17:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a previous RFC (in January-February of this year) that also attracted very little comment - see the section "Article page or talk page" above. I think it's best placed on the article page for stub/start-class articles, because then at least readers are referred to a better source of information that can be machine translated. When our article is getting better, the odds a passer-by can help are even less, and the need to go to another wiki to machine translate is less. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, thinking about this more, another benefit of having them on the article page is that they have a higher chance of being removed if they are stale. In the old translation system, there were translation requests on talk pages and they tended never to be removed--even when the en.wiki article eventually surpassed the foreign-language wiki article.  That made it harder to find worthwhile requests. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the concerns by SmcCandlish that the templates should only be used in article talk pages. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Template name and repurposing Template:Translate
I'd like to change Template:Translate, which currently redirects to Template:Not English, into an updated and consolidated version of this template. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Translation. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Too big?
The template covers three lines of double spaces text. this is too big for a template of this type. CAn I recommend the "Click [show] on the right to review important translation instructions before translating." is removed (It is redundant) and/or the doulbe spacing is removed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Placement in page
Some editors including myself do not like have big banner templates at the top of pages. If they are of high importance to the reader all well and good but a lot of templates are for editors only. And they hang around for years. I want to have the recommended usage of this template as being placed in the references section of an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We have had two RFCs about the placement of this template in the last six months or so, neither of which reached any consensus (mostly for lack of participation)... I don't think you're going to get much of a response. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have BOLDly added a suggested location. It is up to the individual editors as to whether they follow the suggestion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the preferred location in the last RFC was (the top of) the talk page, which seems the best solution to me too, because it seems unprofessional to have such large templates on content pages. --Eleassar my talk 15:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Show
Is there a way that the link that says show could be changed "Show instructions" and then the message "Click [show] on the right for instructions." removed? RJFJR (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
I noticed some of these templates on Good articles and thought they were unnecessarily obtrusive. As such last night I made a proposal at the village pump that they should be moved to the talk page. I did not relise that this same proposal had been made here a few times before. As lack of participation was the major reason no consensus was reached here it may garner a better response there. AIR corn (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Add Lao for a google translate
Google translate now supports Lao, so please add Lao to the list of languages avaliable with GT TheChampionMan1234 10:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk page usage
While there may not be agreement about using this template only on talk pages (although that could be revisited) we could at least adapt the template so that it can be used on talk pages. This could easily be achieved by switching to tmbox when placed on a talk page. Any thoughts? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 April 2013
Request: Change

to

Reason: is the code for Malayalam language and  for Malay language (verify). Google translate offers translation only to Malay (ms) language and not to Malayalam (ml). This must have occurred accidentally. Tested at the sandbox and checked if it works on /testcases. Thank you.

···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 11:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've set up pages at ml:ഉപയോക്താവ്:Redrose64 and at ms:Pengguna:Redrose64 so am aware of the difference myself, so Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! ···V ani s che nu「m/Talk」 18:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Add template
Similarly to the templates, , etc., let us add a template for article expansion from multiple languages, with languages which to expand from as parameters in the format

oldid wikipedia article "Pericles"

Mormegil 87.19.63.231 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I built this template and am not clever enough to expand it into taking multiple language parameters. (This will require a decent amount of tinkering/coding.) Perhaps one day an awesome template editor can improve this! Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It could be simpler: we can build a simple display for the template letting the editor adding that to specify as text to be displayed in the template the various other languages.
 * E.g., the template could display the text "This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding articles in other languages' Wikipedias." etc., then the text "The languages indicated are:" and then the list of languages as written by the editor. Mormegil 87.20.75.93 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, the United States article has 12 or so other language featured articles and is B-Class itself. -- occono (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2012
Could someone edit the tag so it only takes up one line on the page. I am thinking the best solution would be to remove "Click [show] on the right for instructions." and simply have the show button next to the date on the top line. There may be other improvements that can be gleaned from the Village pump (policy) discussion, but this is one that appears to have consensus (or at least no arguements against). If an admin can get consensus out of any of the other suggestions (whether to have the google translation link, placement of tag etc) that would be a bonus. Regards AIR corn (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

AIR corn (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please prepare changes in the sandbox before requesting that an edit is made. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 10:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But I don't know how to make these changes. AIR corn (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that notice should be reduced - it used to say something like "show important instructions" and perhaps should be made more prominent - it must be clear that people have to read the instructions before acting on the tag, because copyright violations can result from translations without giving appropriate credit, as the hidden text explains how to do. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is feasible (or at least, it's not straightforward). The template uses hidden, which requires a header. There's probably a way around that, but personally, I don't think that "click show" line is a problem. For me, the template only becomes intrusive when the "View a machine translated version of the article" stretches it to three lines. It would be easy enough to move that bit into the collapsible part of the template. I think that's what I've done here, but I don't know how to test it without actually implementing it; the line doesn't appear until one of the daughter language templates is used in an article. Could someone who knows about template syntax take a look at the sandbox and check if I've done what I think I have? And would you be happy with that as a solution, Aircorn? DoctorKubla (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Still think it would be better as one line like most of the other maintenance tags, which seemed to be the general feeling at the village pump discussion, but this is definitely an improvement. Thanks for your help. AIR corn (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We should use a more friendly word than "instructions" - maybe "guidelines"? Rich Farmbrough, 05:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I've marked the edit request as "answered" for now. Feel free to reactivate it when there is a clearer consensus for what to do. If someone could add a working version to the sandbox, that would be nice as well. :) — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with DoctorKubla's version? Consensus was pretty clear at the village pump. AIR corn (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sorry, I must be going crazy - for some reason I missed the link to DoctorKubla's sandbox version. I've simplified the code a bit, tested it, and implemented it. I had a brief play around with trying to put the code all on one line, but as DoctorKubla says, I don't think this is possible with hidden. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. AIR corn (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A little late in the day...
I've done some hackish work in reducing the whitespace used by this template in the sandbox. It's not perfect (the "show" text hovers unpleasantly over the rest of it in closed state) but it's getting there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2013
Change to use. The extensibility of ISO 639 name isn't needed here 'cos we're only dealing with other wikis' lang codes. Change is in the sandbox. —

Lfdder (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Expand Norwegian
The articles tagged with Template:Expand Norwegian does not populate the category Category:Articles needing translation from Norwegian Wikipedia. Any experienced editors reading this that knows how to fix it? Mentoz86 (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Articles needing translation from Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia isn't being populated either. I can't work out where the problem lies, but these seem to be the only two cats that are affected. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 January 2014
The image isn't working right; it shows the text 'link =' when hovered over. I think it has to be changed from to  (without the extra spaces). Cathfolant (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's what needs to be changed. Cathfolant (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Obscure licensing point - usually we are only allowed to remove links to images if they are in the public domain, and this one is listed as being licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0. (That's because CC-BY-SA 3.0 requires attribution.) But the image doesn't look original enough to qualify for copyright, so I went ahead and fulfilled this. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 22:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Size of the Box
Sorry if this comment duplicates some of the discussion on similar or "related" topics within the last year. I do not think it belongs under any of the "existing" sections of this "Talk:" page.

Today I noticed that, if I use "Ctrl-Minus" to shrink the text size so much that the entire sentence "'Click [show] on the right to read important instructions before translating.'" fits on one line, then that entire sentence will also fit within the box that encloses [all or 'most' of] the "Expand " template; but if not, -- (or if I were to use "Ctrl-Plus" to enlarge it [if necessary] such that the sentence requires multiple lines) -- then the second line (or, all lines except the first) of that sentence will NOT fit within the box! ...it seems to appear outside (or: "partly" outside) the box.

I realize that this can be affected by things on my end, but I tried it with 3 different browser programs (Google Chrome, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Firefox), and the "problem" seemed to be the same with all 3 browsers.

I first noticed this when reading an article in the Enlish Wikipedia (Haskalah) (at the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haskalah). I was using the Browser Google Chrome (version 27.0.1453.94). The magnification was [already] set to 250%. (But it can be expanded or shrunk, using "Ctrl-Plus" or "Ctrl-Minus".) The last word (only) of the sentence ending with "before translating", was "partly" outside the box. (It was *right* "on the line".)

I spent a little bit of time trying to find the template file (that I thought I 'might' be able to edit), to fix the problem. Then I gave up. I do not know where the change might have to be made. (Is it possible that this "issue" might be generic to all templates where there is some text surrounded by a box? ...or maybe those that contain a "  " tag?)  I still do not know where the code (or the script, or whatever it is) is located, that determines the size of the box.

Just a report. Any advice? Thanks, --Mike Schwartz (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No advice, but as I am reading Wikipedia zoomed myself, and just came here to point this out, I second this and hope someone can fix it. (Sadly I have no template editing skills.) --Ørjan (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Overlapping text
When I click "show" the text that reads "This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in ..." overlaps "Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality..." Hyacinth (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Category tag is in the wrong place
Heya, the category tag for Expand language ZH is showing in the wrong place - i.e. in plaintext as part of the article, rather than being interpreted as a category tag - on Jaw-Shen Tsai. Any ideas? &#124; Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 11:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. You shouldn't add this template directly to an article, it's just a parent for the more specific language templates, eg Expand Chinese, which you should use instead. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request: "a" machine-translated version?
In the instructions, the first two lines begin:
 * View a machine-translated version of the French article.
 * Google's machine translation is a useful starting point for translations...

The "view" link always goes to Google and not any other translation software, but Google isn't mentioned until the second bullet point. It should say something like:
 * View a version of the French article machine-translated by Google.
 * Machine translation is a useful starting point for translations...

In the future it would be useful to support links to other translation software if this is available. (I haven't gone looking for thus, but I know Babelfish was around before Google was doing it, and whether they still are or not, there could be others in the future.) Then the instructions might change to something like:
 * View a version of the French article machine-translated by Google, or by your Babel Fish , or by the Universal Translator.
 * Machine translation is a useful starting point for translations...

A second point: the second bullet continues with a suggestion to "revise errors". I think this would read better as "correct errors" or "revise to correct errors". --174.88.134.156 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata for otherarticle value
Can we default the  to the Wikidata value for the Wikilink to the article in the other language, if it is defined?

I don't know how we would do this, but I guess it can be done via  or something...  has some clues... Si Trew (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 February 2016
Please implement the changes from the template's sandbox. I made it automatically get the sitelink from Wikidata if possible and no explicit link is given. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please fix spelling: "correspoding article" --> "correspoNding article"
Please add a missing letter N: should be "corresponding article". Thanks! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 April 2016
No one with the ability to do it seems to have noticed the request above. Please correct this spelling. Emeraude (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Trout for myself and User:Nyuszika7H for not spotting this earlier! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 August 2016
Google translate offers translation in 104 languages, however this template only contains codes for 66 of them, the following were added by google after this template was protected and were never added into the template: Amharic, Bosnian, Burmese, Cebuano, Chewa, Corsican, Hausa, Hawaiian, Hmong, Igbo, Javanese, Kazakh, Khmer, Kurdish, Kyrgyz, Luxembourgish, Malagasy, Malayalam, Marathi, Mongolian, Maori, Nepali, Pashto, Punjabi, Samoan, Scottish Gaelic, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhalese, Somali, Sotho, Sundanese, Tajik, Uzbek, West Frisian, Xhosa, Yoruba, Zulu There may be others missing as well, I would add them myself if I could. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is what the completed list of codes would look like with all the codes, excluding hmong which doesn't have a wikipedia to correspond to: PAGE''' ]]) 22:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK

Template-protected edit request on 20 August 2016
Currently the googlelangcode override parameter no longer works, inserting it on a template currently does nothing, both Norwegian (Nynorsk) and Belarusian (Taraškievica) can be translated using google translate but currently these templates do not give option for translation due to this, I also noticed the code for Serbo-Croatian |sh which is not in google translate was in this template and it shows up on the Serbo-Croatian template giving translation option, I also tested here and found that adding in |nn and |be-tarask to the list would allow for translation option. Also as a side note Sotho |st is also missing from the list and needs to be added in as well.

Here would be the complete list with the addition of Nynorsk, Taraškievica and Sotho
 * — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Abrahamic Faiths, unless I misunderstand, I don't think googlelangcode override parameter no longer works, but it's just that 3 extra language codes from the sandbox should synced live. Anyway, I've synced to the sandbox along with minor tweaks. Re-open if there are still issues. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 16:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Better URL with HTTPS for the Google Translate link
In certain cases, the template generates a link for viewing a machine-translated version of an article via Google Translate. For the URL that is used for the link, it would be useful to change  to   instead. In particular, this new URL for Google Translate works even if the user has the HTTPS Everywhere browser extension enabled, whereas the existing URL leads to a Google Translate page where the URL of the article to be translated is identified but the translation does not take place if HTTPS Everywhere is enabled. In addition, the new URL should provide increased privacy and security for users by incorporating HTTPS for Google Translate and Wikipedia. Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done copied from sandbox, per request Cabayi (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Google's machine translation is a useful starting point for translations...
...no it isn't. Please scrap that bullet and replace it with "Google's machine translation can be a useful starting point for understanding the non-English Wikipedia article, but it should not be used for translating content into the English Wikipedia article. Short quotes from machine translation may be placed on the article talk page as a starting point for discussion." Rd232 talk 01:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Still just as true now, as it was then, so just chiming in with my "like", here. However, I'd alter the part about it "being a useful starting point for understanding" because a translator certainly won't need it, and a non-translator shouldn't be using it for content translation.  The only legitimate use of it by non-translators that I can think of is to vet the article before translation for issues of suitability as an article for English Wikipedia: i.e,  notability, BLP issues, copyvio, promotion, libel, or violations of any other guideline that would make it unsuitable here; certainly that would be appropriate for the Talk page.  But holding out Google translate to a non-translator group as a possible tool for content translation is a big mistake, imho. Better just not to mention it, full stop.  (The part about using it for short excerpts on the Talk page in the context of pre-translation vetting as previously noted is acceptable.) Mathglot (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Want a template
Can we please have another template that suggests the need for a Simple English Wikipedia version of an English Wikipedia article?

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this seems like a good idea, but I'm pretty sure templates pointing to work on a foreign-language wiki are probably going to be more controversial than templates stating that information could be transferred from such a wiki; while Simple English Wikipedia is clearly different from German Wikipedia with respect to standard English Wikipedia, some people are certainly going to invoke "well, if we do that, we have to mark every page that lacks an international counterpart for every counterpart that's needed, and that would be unreasonable so we shouldn't". While the idea makes sense, I don't think it's likely to be approved; if there is a less-intrusive variant possible, maybe that would work?

(also, this is probably the wrong place for this proposal. Just sayin'.) Hppavilion1 (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Too disturbing
This tag does not mark a fault, not even a deficiency. It is an exhortation to other editors to do something that the tagging editor cannot or do not want to do herself. Most of the time it is in the interest of the reader that it gets done. But it is not in the interest of the reader to see this tag. The situation is very similar to the stub tag, which has been discussed much more extensively. This tag should follow the example of the stub tag: smaller and placement near the bottom of the page. --Ettrig (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a reasonable idea, although the machine translation link is useful to the reader- but, on the other hand, it's not difficult to open a machine translation yourself. Hppavilion1 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Looking at the next section, you apparently started making the change yourself; while it's a reasonable idea, this was a bit too large of a change to make without consensus. Hppavilion1 (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Attempts to change the placement of expand language templates without consensus
User:Ettrig has been single handedly trying to relocate the expand language templates to the bottom of pages across multiple pages against the consensus, having already begun the process, a few examples shown here, and is continuously trying to force this new guideline onto the howto template which is transcluded on the documentation on all the expand templates. I have suggested that things should remain at status quo ante until a proper discussion takes place and consensus is reached, but he continues to revert to his version, if anyone could help mediate this issue that would be great. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The provided link does not point at consensus on placing this tag at the top of the article. I have changed the tag placement on a rather large number of articles. I have motivated this above and seen no counter-argument. --Ettrig (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize you are talking about changing tens of thousands of pages, the french category and subcategories alone contain over 10,000 articles with this tag, to do this you would either need a team of editors, of which there are currently no volunteers, or a bot which you would need administrative approval for and would be unlikely to get. Also editing thousands of pages at a time is bound to catch the attention of a great many editors and likely won't end well. I have now said all I wish to say and am now going to sit on the sidelines and watch what happens from a distance, good luck. — Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, there are some words, but no argument about the actual issue. What is the best placement of this tag? One additional issue: The quality of this tagging seems to be very poor. In the 21 articles I examined in the last bout, 8 of the tags (38%) pointed to articles that were tagged for quality issues (stub or lack of references). Yes, especially for the french subset, the number of tags is huge. This means they are a huge problem. That is motivation to start doing something about them, not for sitting idle. --Ettrig (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My proposal for Expand language template is this:
 * Template at top of article page, one line, no instructions hidden or otherwise, a link to a WP shortcut going to an instruction page if needed, and that's it.
 * Although as a programmer, I appreciate the effort that went into the conditional text gen in the template based on whether Google translate does, or doesn't have your language, I think that effort was not needed and is not helpful.
 * However we should not be encouraging, or even mentioning Google translate in the template at all, with the possible exception of warning people about it.
 * As a translator and someone not completely unfamiliar with statistical machine translation, I have no bias against Google translate as I know what its capabilities and weaknesses are. Translators use it to save typing time, and I have no objection to that.  But I also know how it gets used here in reality: by monolinguals or by someone with three or four years of high school French who doesn't realize that adding a machine translation is worse than nothing. And I agree with that policy statement one hundred percent.
 * As to why we shouldn't say anything about Google translate in the template, it's for several reasons:
 * For translators, we don't need to explain. I'll go out on a limb here, and say that in ALL of wikipedia.org, there is not one, yes folks, not ONE, single, solitary, registered user anywhere on the planet who has contributed to Wikipedia in two different languages (whether English is one of them or not) who has never heard of Google translate and who is not already more familiar with it than our template instructions are capable of conveying.  Trying to tell them about it is a completely pointless exercise.
 * For monolinguals, we don't want to tell them about it, except to warn them away. Do I even need to explain?
 * That leaves the hazy middle ground of those who can get around, more or less, with their holiday Spanish or a few years of high school French under their belt, and have a sincere desire to help. Do we want to instruct them about Google translate?  Absolutely not.  First of all, they likely already know about it. Secondly, writing about it in the template gives an implied stamp of approval that "Wikipedia says it's okay to use" when it isn't okay.  Secondly, in translating an article, a little knowledge is a (very) dangerous thing. I could go on about this point at length, but here's an example:  I'm about to fix up Marais Poitevin which has a very basic error of fact due to a translation error that has been there since the article was created in 2004.  In thirteen years, nobody has fixed it.  (If you spot it, feel free to fix it up if I haven't gotten around to it yet.)  That is one example of the risk in using machine translation (ditto poor human translation): you introduce errors (sometimes with refs in foreign languages that the majority cannot understand) that last far longer than the average "monolingual" error of fact. (Okay, I don't really have the statistics to back up that claim, it's just a hunch, but from my experience editing translated, and non-translated pages, I bet it's true.)
 * So what should the template say? My proposal:
 * Please help Expand this article which was translated from the French.  See WP:UsefulShortcutLink
 * That's it, nothing else. Maybe a param that lets you swap out "Expand" for "Improve" (for those cases where the translation appears to be complete, but crappy) and another param that lets you swap out "article" for "section".  That, plus the shortcut, tells the translators everything they need to know.  The shortcut link should wave everyone else off, or give them ideas about how to support translated articles by working on the scaffolding, and avoiding the content. (I have plenty of thoughts about how monolinguals can help which I may expand into an essay at some point.)
 * Now you can leave it the brief template at the top, and even bundle it inside Multiple issues templates, like dozens of other templates that don't interest most readers, but nevertheless are displayed at the top (appropriately so, imho). That's my two centimes.  Mathglot (talk)

And for those who are trying to change it from top to bottom, or from bottom to top, and couldn't because it's so devilishly hard to find, here ya go: Template:Expand_language/howto. Have at it! Mathglot (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I made the comment above merely to make the location of the documentation transparent to everyone, regardless of one's opinion on the substance.  The flip comment at the end doesn't reflect my own opinion, which is to gain consensus first, and not just flip documentation back and forth.  I have struck out that portion.  Mathglot (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Any change to the placement of the templates ought to be discussed, agreed and documented at WP:ORDER within MOS - that's where editors will look for guidance. Pam  D  07:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed. Mathglot (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Making a huge number of edits of that kind without even attempting to obtain consensus (as far as I'm aware?) is not collegial behaviour. I propose a mass revert of those edits. I think there are about 2500, so that would be an interesting test of the mass rollback script. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout that may be of interest to those watching this page. Thanks. Timothy Joseph Wood 12:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem with display on mobile due to HTML inconsistency
This article may be expanded with text trans generates HTML which is inconsistent from other mbox templates. This results in the issue not showing up in mobile (see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T162632)

This can easily be fixed by moving mbox-text-span above the line  as the mobile site isn't able to render NavFrames.

is this something that we could do? Jdlrobson (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlrobson (talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

EW left unapproved doc change in place
Currently, the doc page Template:Expand language/howto says: but this doesn't have consensus and should be removed pending a discussion. This was originally inserted unilaterally by an editor, causing an edit war in September 2016, after which the to the page left the doc in a state which included the unapproved change.

The editor involved is on break for about a month, so no new consensus should be assumed until they get back and have had a chance to discuss this, but in the meantime per WP:BRD the pre-boldly changed version should be in place while the discussion is going on. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am back. My request is that this template should be placed near the bottom of the articles and that the documentation should say this. The main argument for this is the principle that the articles should have the most important information first, combined with my evaluation that this template does not hold important information. The only value for the reader is the potential indirect effect of inspiring to a translation effort. This hope is dubious. Of the last 100 articles that I checked and changed, a vast majority of the articles were tagged in 2008, so they have disturbed the reader for a very long time, without the wanted effect. Exactly 83 (of the 100) pointed to articles in French that were marked as stubs. The vast majority of them were bot generated. So the request wasn't even reasonable. This shows that the process around this template does not provide for reasonable quality of marking, which in turn points at low importance.
 * The only counter argument that I have seen is that there is a consensus for status quo and that therefore a consensus must be reached for a change to take place. This argument is not valid. Already the second discussion on this talk page raises the same concern. That discussion died out without reaching a conclusion. It mentions two RFCs that showed the same pattern. When I much more recently raised the concern, the one answer was positive concerning the substance. --Ettrig (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As discussed further up on this page, this discussion should continue on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. --Ettrig (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your mistake. There was no positive comment when you "raised the concern" in any appropriate venue.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As discussed further up on this page, this discussion should continue on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. --Ettrig (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 September 2017
At the beginning of the second indented paragraph, the words "Upon the translation" make no sense and should be deleted. The instruction will then begin "You must provide ..." and that makes good sense.

In the same paragraph, the words "by noting your translation" are quite unclear. If I've understood them, it would be better to say "by writing Translated from ... and adding an interlanguage link to the source of your translation." Andrew Dalby 15:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done:, I've removed "Upon the translation"as requested. However, the second change needs a rethink. Your model edit summary, Translated from ..., clashes with the model edit summary found two sentences further on "A model attribution edit summary...". A more substantial overhaul of the paragraph may be necessary. Cabayi (talk) 10:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Moving the text about the talk page ("You should also add to the talk page the template Translated page.") to a separate bullet point would allow a better flow of instructional text about the translation itself. Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You're quite right: probably because of the intervening sentence about the talk page, I didn't realise that a model edit summary was already provided further on! I agree with you, then, that it would be best to remove the talk page sentence from this paragraph and make it a separate bullet point.
 * Since the model edit summary will then immediately follow the first sentence, my feeling is that the words "by noting your translation", which aren't clear, could simply be deleted. What do you think? Andrew Dalby 12:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done, I think the changes I've made accurately reflect our discussion. Please check. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've done just what was needed, I think. Thanks again Andrew Dalby 19:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

When no topic is supplied
When no topic is supplied, can we just default to a blank? eg. Category:Articles needing translation from German Wikipedia? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  23:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this not what's happening now? Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. See for example.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue was that the daughter templates should be used, not this template directly. Expand German behaves correctly. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Say can, not may
We read This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in ...ese. Please say This article can be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in ...ese. Else it seems that you are saying that the article possibly already contains such content.

Also the "show" button looks like it is there to show you that content right away.

Jidanni (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Jidanni is right: "can" expresses it better than "may". There is also the alternative "could", which I think would correctly imply that translating from another language is just one option (the other is to expand using reliable sources directly). Andrew Dalby 12:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but either one is clunky, and "could" sounds wishy-washy, like it might rain, or something. Switch to: "You are invited to expand..." or "Please expand...".  If I had my druthers, I'd always go with active voice; so, the latter.  Mathglot (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * How 'bout we try, "Please help improve this article by expanding it with text translated from the corresponding article in &lt;language>." Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018
Substitute  with , i.e. add spaces between words.

It will make it easier to read. Right now this part renders as e.g.  and this is hard to read. 93.136.40.235 (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Luis150902  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 21:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Bot run
Hi. Currently, this template has 54494 direct transclusions in articles, despite the warning to use the language-specific template instead. How would people feel about a bot run to convert Expand language to the language-specific template corresponding with  in articles? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
Hi, change  to   as the button to be pressed says [Expand]   21:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The difference was due to your language settings. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

16 December 2019 edit request
Greetings and felicitations. This is minor, but "Deepl" (see the template's code) should be "DeepL" per its Web site. Would someone please be so kind as to make this correction? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --DannyS712 (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Customized edit summary suggestions
Hi, I've now implemented customized edit summary suggestions based on the langcode. You can see two examples of it in the testcases and if you wish to see more use the sandbox version in any of the specific language versions. Would everyone approve if I implement this? The langcode is already used for Wikipedia links which means that the langcode being wrong isn't a problem if the template was working before the change. If no langcode is supplied, or it isn't recognized nothing is changed. Pinging and  who were at the original edit request at Expand French. --Trialpears (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 October 2019
Change the German example on all specific foreign-language expansion templates to their respective languages. I.E: Change the example for a German article on Template:Expand French to an example for a French article, change the example for a German article on Template:Expand Spanish to an example for a Spanish article, etc. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I.E. for French, change this... :

A model attribution edit summary (using German): Content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at de:Exact name of German article; see its history for attribution.

...to this:

A model attribution edit summary: Content in this edit is translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at fr:Exact name of German article; see its history for attribution.

...and so on for all the other foreign-language templates. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see the suggested change above and review the test cases. --Izno (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've now implemented this seeing as noone objected for months. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Support for several languages
I've created a sandbox version that support several languages to be linked through langcode2, langcode3, otherarticle2 and otherarticle3 parameters in response to a template request by. Feel free to look at the testcases and give feedback and if noone objects I will add this feature to the live template in a few days. I also plan on removing the This template should not be placed on article pages directly. notice at the docs page since the template then would have additional features not accessible through the wrappers ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , first of all thanks so much for taking the time to make this. It looks good overall; my only complaints are the redundant comma when there are exactly two languages listed and the lack of category additions for langcode2 and langcode3. Ionmars10 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Topic parameter is broken
It appears adding a topic parameter no longer adds an article to a subcategory of "Category:Articles needing translation from x". For example, 2019 Colombian protests is tagged, but the article is not in Category:History articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia or Category:Articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia.

Pinging the last user to edit the template. Surachit (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , terribly sorry for that. I messed up the conditionals so only featured articles got sorted properly, which made the entire system look like it was working fine when doing an all parameter test but not under normal use. Should be fixed now, will monitor the categories to make sure it works. Thanks for telling me! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)