Template talk:Interlanguage link/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Size and substitution

Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

The other day when I used this template I thought the foreign language links were smaller than the regular text. To day it is not. The version in the sandbox is displaying smaller characters. See: Template:Interlanguage link multi/testcases. Why the change?

A problem with missing spaces

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Here are two entries the difference being that the "en" link is to Charles Darwin (botanist) and to Charles Darwin

{{Interlanguage link multi|Charles Darwin (botanist)|lt=Charles Darwin|fr|Charles Darwin|de|Charles Darwin|es|Charles Darwin}}
{{Interlanguage link multi|Charles Darwin |lt=Charles Darwin|fr|Charles Darwin|de|Charles Darwin|es|Charles Darwin}}

Number 1,a Charles Darwin [fr; de; es]

was interested in

Number 2,a Charles Darwin

was interested in

In cases "a" everything works as expected.

Number 1,b Charles Darwin [fr; de; es]

dogs

Number 2,b Charles Darwin

dogs

In this case "1,b" works as expected but in the second one ("2,b") the word dogs appears to be concatenated onto the end of the bullet point with no spaces (although it is actually on the next line as in example "Number 2,a")

Number 1,c Charles Darwin [fr; de; es] dogs

Number 2,c Charles Darwin dogs

In this last pair (numbers 1,c and 2,c) the word dogs is on the same line as the template, and the space remains in both cases.

Has anyone any ideas what is causing the white spaces to be eaten in example "Number 2.b"?

-- PBS (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be caused by the tracking category inserted by the else condition. It would appear the parser consumes the newline where it's preceded by a category.

* [[Charles Darwin]]
[[dog]]s

Charles Darwin

dogs

* [[Charles Darwin]][[Category:Interlanguage link template existing link]]
[[dog]]s

Charles Darwin

dogs

Alakzi (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, but it is not consuming the new-line if the new-line is followed by ordinary text (as in example "2,a").-- PBS (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added a <nowiki /> after the category, which seems to have fixed it. Alakzi (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Well done for finding a fix. But it looks like a hack there as are now two end <nowiki /> and no open <nowiki>. -- PBS (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean? Where are there two? Alakzi (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a snippet from the other place in the code:{{#if:{{{reasonator|}}}|<nowiki />; -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: Aren't they just empty tags and not end tags? Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean but don't they usually come in pairs? -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a void element and is syntactically valid. End tags are in the form of </nowiki> (notice the slash placement). Alakzi (talk) 11:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I have never used it and just assumed it was being used as an alternative to </nowiki>. -- PBS (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The display parameter

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Apart from the template template:Interlanguage link forced (which has no parameters) and internally now uses "-preserve" is there any other old template that use either "display" or "preserve"?

This is an unusual use of "display" as "display" parameter is usually used in templates to display alternative names as is done in this template with the "lt" parameter. -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The nobold parameter

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The parameter nobold does not currently seem to do anything. Before the merge started was there a nobold option in any of the templates (or for that matter a "bold" one)? -- PBS (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

|nobold= is documented here. It appears to be unused, and unless somebody can explain why it's needed, it should be removed. Alakzi (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi and PBS: It was added by User:Zyxw to {{Ill}} in September 2013 and seems to have been used only by them on the five articles that the search page links to. However, I'm not sure that it definitely needs to be removed, since it's useful for edge cases like those five articles and it's relatively harmless. Jc86035 (talk | contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 15:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot {{Ill}} uses this template now there for a moment. Alakzi (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It does not currently seem to be working for those five examples. -- PBS (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is; the interlanguage links are not in bold. Alakzi (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

ah! of course! I was just looking at the linked name, which if I had thought about it a little more, comes before the setting so consequently can not be affected by "nobold". -- PBS (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I vote for removing it, because every option that makes the template more complex is a minus. Also, arguably it shouldn't exist because the only purpose in the five listed examples was to defeat the default bold font of one part of a table header. Defeating a default font also adds one little bit of visual complexity (why that bit? the reader will ask), which is also a minus. Let's get rid of this. Editors should just concentrate on content and leave the visual styling up to the style definitions. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Superscript

Latest comment: 8 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

@user:Alakzi and user:Jc86035 I was going to play around in the sand box and add an option to use superscript, but I see that there is a new radically different version currently under development in the sandbox so I have not altered it. Anyway what I wanted to test is from HTML element#sub:
<sub>...</sub> and <sup>...</sup>

Mark _subscript or ^superscript text. (Equivalent CSS: {vertical-align: sub} or {vertical-align: super}.)

by adding a named parameter called "sup" (or "super" -- I am not fussed). This would be set as the default in {{Interlanguage link}}. As some might prefer it if the language indicator was subscripted, that can be added at the same time. -- PBS (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounds rather unconventional. Has it been discussed before, and is there a precedent to using superscript for any purpose, bar footnote anchors and inline maintenance tags? Alakzi (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This whole template is unconventional! Yes it has, see template talk:interlanguage link#Syncronize with template:Link-interwiki. Superscript is used in approximately 70,000 articles, I don't know how many are not footnotes or inline maintenance tags (but there are three instances in the first 20 which if a fair sample is about 1 in 7 or about 10,000 articles), and anyway this is an inline maintenance tag! Besides until the merge template:Link-interwiki used superscripts (transclusion count of 832). -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is used in scientific notation; I meant for our purposes. This is as much a maintenance tag as it is a navigational aid, though, isn't it? Alakzi (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You ask and I answered you specific question. Besides one of the links provide in the first 20 pages is to ^uk which would still mean about 3,000 articles, and there are the other 800 which have been removed because the functionality does not exist in this template. I do not see this template as primarily a navigation aid, because if it were, then it would have to go into external links per the various guidelines on external links being placed inside articles. That guidance is one of two reasons why placing a another wiki link in place of a red link is discouraged, the other being that editors are unlikely to realise there is a missing article unless they happen to click on it. The whole point of these templates is to temporarily fill in holes in en.wikipedia, and given that most readers will not be able to read the foreign language links, their primary use is as an editor to editor message and therefore a maintenance issue (just like template:Disambiguation needed). If I were to see this template displayed when a a blue link existed to a en.wikipedia article (because of the display=1 parameter) I would remove it and justify doing so with WP:Layout#Links to sister projects, because if a person wishes to read the foreign language version of an article they can click on the blue link and then on the appropriate language.

I agree, some of these other options are unnecessary, including |display=. I tend to think of the parenthetical interlanguage links as cross-referential editorial notes. I think you underestimate their navigational utility: you do not need to be a speaker of a foreign language to be able to extract some key facts, which is made especially easy by infoboxes. In addition, some browsers (like Chrome) will offer to translate the page. I'm opposed to adding an option for superscript. You've not put forward any use cases of each, so I shall assume that their use boils down to editor preference; therefore, either superscript should be the default, or it should not be part of the template at all. Alakzi (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice that the examples in "cross-referential editorial notes" are to en.wikipedia, there is a very long prohibition to linking to external websites in the main body of the text, with the exception of dictionary and source (I know because I had to argue long and hard to have those two exceptions included in WP:LAYOUT). Your argument the "think you underestimate their navigational utility" could also be used to justify including any external link in the main body of the text. -- PBS (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi: apparently not; the superscript was added by an IP who was apparently unsatisfied with there being no space between the red link and the brackets due to a coding error. This change has been copied to 20 other wikis. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking anyone to code this for me (I intend to add the functionality here), but in this template I was not intending to default it on, but I am asking which is intended to be the stable version. The one currently in production or the one in the sandbox (as I do not want to zap the sandbox if it is intended to add it to production)? -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"either superscript should be the default, or it should not be part of the template at all." Why should it not be a parameter option, particularly as it was the default in one of the templates which is being merged into this one, and the majority of people who have expressed an opinion in template talk:interlanguage link#Syncronize with template:Link-interwiki have asked for it? -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Because such an option would not offer utility, and - hopefully - we can come to agree that one is better than the other. Alakzi (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A parameter will offer a utility, as it allows editors to choose how they want to display the links. Forcing one size fits all when there is clearly a difference of opinion is is not desirable and surly if the integration of the different templates is to be done correctly then their original look ought to be avaible by default. -- PBS (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea if italic is better or worse than non italic. It is primarily a style issue and a matter of taste. At the moment only two of us have expressed an opinion one way or the other. This is to a large enough sample to come to a consensus (even if we agreed). The simplest solution to creating a consensus is to put in switches and let the editors who use the template. After a year or so the usage can be reviewed and if any particular combination is particularly prevalent then that can be made the default. If it turns out that some options are never used then there is no reason that they can not be deprecated. On the down side, switches complicate the look of the code; however compared to what is already in the code the additions to allow a few parameters are relatively minor. -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have re-added italic as an option and I have added a new option for vertical-alignment. The latter will allow an option that already existed in one of the merged templates and I think is desirable in another. Test examples exist in Template:Interlanguage_link_multi/testcases, for those who want to see look and feel. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Where might consensus for these changes be found? Alakzi (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A response is not forthcoming, so I've made some minor markup and style adjustments and removed the italics option nobody's asked for. Alakzi (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Waiting just over 2 hours for a response on a world wide project is asking a lot. I think that the very minimum that is reasonable is 24 hours. I thought you were the person who suggested italic and encoded italic. It does little harm to have it in the code (I just thought it a bad idea to default it), but if you want to remove it I am not going to reinstate it. As for the other change see above. -- PBS (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, maybe so, but you've incorporated a feature I've been opposed to - you should stick around to hear my complaints. ;-) Anyway, let's just roll with it. Alakzi (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Alakzi and PBS: I don't really think there should be a vertical-align option, since it doesn't actually do anything useful; all other parameters have some utility to them. It just makes the template more complicated than it needs to be. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It does do something useful, it alters the appearance of the template, it has been a feature for may years in some of the merged templates, and a number of editors (including me) prefer the it. If you follow you line of thought about simplification then we may as well go back to the Revision on 3 April. -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: I don't think any of the templates had the option to change the alignment before the merger, did they? Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That is not really the point because if you are going to combine templates that have different capabilities then you need to code for that. There are four options:

Go back to pre merge templates, and develop them further independently.
Leave out functions an only code to the minimum. IE simply go back to Revision on 3 April
Include the functionality but do not document it, instead let different templates display different aspects
Include the functionality and document it. Different templates may have different defaults, but editors can have access to different facets.

I don't see for example why you think it ok to include "unbold" and "forcing" (let alone exotic options such as reasonator) as options, while wishing to suppress visual-alignment for which several editors have expressed as a preference. -- PBS (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

After complaining about the vertical-align option at Template_talk:Interlanguage_link#Synchronize_with_template:Link-interwiki, I was informed about the discussion here, so I will copy my complaint, as follows.

I don't think that the appearance of the template is something that should be parameterized. It should have a standard appearance, instead of varying just because individual editors think super or subscript looks better. What are readers supposed to make of that variation? Is it supposed to mean something?

I don't really care how it's displayed, as long as it's consistent and accessible (individual language codes, when there are more than one, should be legible and individually clickable on a smartphone). The same function should always be displayed in the same way. This is a very basic principle of interface design. So I propose that this option be abolished. Choose whichever method you like, but only one. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I have been busy using the templates in various new articles about the Battle of Waterloo. To you argument about "It should have a standard appearance" while there is consensus in the MOSS that there should be consistency within articles there in no consensus that there should be consistency across Wikipedia (otherwise one would have colour ~~spelt~~ spelled color everywhere (see WP:ARTCON). There is general agreement that there should be no sister links in the body of the text unless they are either links to Wiktionary or wikisource (see Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects). So if there is to be only one style I would suggest that it ought to be superscript so that the template output looks like other maintenance templates. But I recognise that some editors may prefer keep the style that is the current default. -- PBS (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Blue link with interlanguage link(s)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a behaviour that wasn't documented. If it's intentional I'd suggest it be documented permanently; if not, the behaviour should be changed. I added the following to the documentation:

As of February 2016^[update] if there is a redirect for the term in English Wikipedia, both the redirected (blue) link and interlanguage link(s) are displayed. English "Casa" redirects to "CASA":

{{illm|casa|es||it||ro||de|haus}}

displays and links as casa [es; it; ro; de]

If this is intended behaviour, not subject to change, it could be used in some cases to force interlanguage links to existing articles with redirects:

{{illm|Obama|es||it||ro||de||lt=Barack Obama}} ==> Barack Obama [es; it; ro; de]

{{illm|Barack Obama|es||it||ro||de}} ==> Barack Obama

Pol098 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Parameter trailing space does not appear to be stripped

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed that the template does not strip a trailing space (or leading) from the language code or article name parameters before formatting them for display. (I did not test other parameters.) I have the impression that many editors add a trailing space to parameters to improve readability and ease of editing of templates in the edit window. Most templates seem to remove trailing spaces. Would it be a good idea to add that behavior to this one? [Actually I was using Template:Interlanguage link. Maybe I should have left this comment there?] --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Substonly?

Latest comment: 7 years ago77 comments9 people in discussion

User:Primefac added {{substonly}} to this template and User:AnomieBOT is now carrying out that change. I'm curious why and where this decision was made. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek, it was made due to this TFD. It's just taken us a while to actually get around to implementing it. Primefac (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw that, but User:Frietjes' remark, "reconsider substituting or redirecting the less commonly used ones" a) didn't strike me as a compelling case for this action (subst'ing wasn't mentioned there until his, the last, comment); b) wasn't mentioned be the closer, User:Plastikspork; c) contradicts this action as {{ill}} is much more widely used than {{Interlanguage link}}; d) contradicts the widely followed principle "Redirects are cheap" – is {{cn}} going to subst'ed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted. The documentation clearly stated that ill should not be substituted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The easiest way to convert a wrapper into a redirect is to substitute it. All of the templates mentioned in the TFD will be converted to redirects. {{ill}} is a redirect to {{interlanguage link}} anyway, so if we're replacing the latter with {{interlanguage link multi}} then by definition we will be replacing {{ill}}. It's not just a case of changing the redirect target because the parameters would be in the wrong order and you'd have 20k broken templates. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, as for the documentation saying it shouldn't be subst - the TFD takes precedence over that, since it will be a moot point once the template is turned into a redirect. Primefac (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No. The TFD does not authorise such a drastic, sweeping and disruptive change. The TFD clearly indicates that it is not substituted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Substitution of a wrapper to complete a merge is standard. It's absolutely not the same as substituting template code onto thousands of articles, which is what "substitution" means when discussed at TfD. If you have issue with how TfD operates, take it to a village pump, but substituting a wrapper to complete the merge is absolutely backed by that consensus. Please don't make me protect this template to enforce that consensus. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and override consensus with your own take on it then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how familiar you are with TfD, Hawkeye7, but this is how around 95% of all merges work. What do you see as not being in-line with consensus? Please quote the closing statement in your explanation, as it doesn't even refer to substitution. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

there is a desire that at least some of the old syntax would be supported, so the best path forward is probably to rewrite most of the templates to use a common main "backend" template. Once that is accomplished, it should be clear how trivial (or non-trivial) the individual frontend templates are, and whether or not they can be made into redirects, while still retaining any important functionality/syntax. Please continue the discussion elsewhere. Meaning that the way the templates have to be used (having to subst: them or not) will not change, and that we will not be forced into using the cumbersome Template:Interlanguage link multi instead of the simple Template:Interlanguage link. And that thousands of articles will not be updated without further discussion. And updating tens of thousands of articles is exactly what is going on. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, if I may use an example from the discussion I started regarding how to implement this TFD: right now, we have {{ill|fr|XYZ}}. If we just changed the redirect target it would break. This TFD is making it so that when someone uses ill the syntax will be {{ill|XYZ|fr}}. It sounds silly, but swapping those two parameters means that everything will work the same, whether you use ill, interlanguage link, or interlanguage link multi. That is the entire point of this TFD. As discussed elsewhere, there just isn't any good way of swapping those parameters around without either a) substing the existing wrapper or b) doing a much more complicated set of regex AWB edits (which will temporarily break everything while the change/redirect percolates through the servers). Primefac (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

And as a note, all of the existing templates will be converted to redirects. It's not like we're getting rid of ill permanently. If you're really keen on making everything ill-dependent, you can request a bot replace every instance of interlanguage link multi with ill. Primefac (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hawkeye7: I'm not sure whether this was the case during the TfD, but multi is currently written exactly the same as this template, but with two parameters reversed. That is the only change in terms of this template's use case. The closing statement goes on to say "Once that is accomplished, it should be clear how trivial (or non-trivial) the individual frontend templates are, and whether or not they can be made into redirects, while still retaining any important functionality/syntax." Here, all functionality is perfectly retained and the only syntax difference is a flipped parameter. Reading the full discussion, the syntax concerns were about substantial changes like requiring different language codes, requiring complicated switches, or requiring Wikidata usage. This merge is clearly supported by the TfD. As a courtesy, I'll ask Primefac to hold off a week to allow you to file another TfD seeking to reverse the old one, but in the absence of a new clear consensus against merging, the closure of the 2015 TfD will be enacted. It's unreasonable to expect those trying to clear out WP:TFD/H to re-argue everything at TfD every time a new editor pops up opposing the existing consensus. The burden of overturning the old consensus lies firmly with you if you disagree with it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

So we can have a Bot editing war? I understand that it may sometimes be hard to enact the consensus. But the difference is not a flipped parameter. I now have to write {{subst:ill|fr|XYZ}} instead of {{ill|fr|XYZ}}. And the Bot will substitute {{Interlanguage link multi|XYZ|fr|3=XYZ|lt=XYZ}}! Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Incorrect. Once all transclusions are substituted, this will become a redirect. You will have to write {{ill|XYZ|fr}} and that will be it. It will redirect to {{illm}}. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. {{substonly}} means that the template must be substituted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, technically, in order for the template to be substituted per the TFD, it only needs to be in Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted. It doesn't need to have {{substonly}} on the page. Would you prefer I do that instead? Primefac (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hawkeye7: Again, when template merges occur, often the template is rewritten as a wrapper. The wrapper is then substituted. Then the template is redirected in its entirety to the merge target. When properly written, the wrapper's substitution takes the place of a much more complicated bot run using AWB or requiring a bot operator to write code individualized to this template. The end result will be a redirect to {{illm}}. The {{substonly}} transclusion with the auto parameter tells the bot to carry out the intermediate substitution step. It requires zero changed behavior on the part of the editor. I don't know that I can say this any other way, and I'm not sure whether you somehow think I'm lying or rather think I'm incompetent. I close a large portion of the TfDs, have completed many bot runs to merge templates, and have written the wrappers for this type of merge for many of the templates previously listed at WP:TFD/H. I can assure you that what I'm saying is correct. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Not forcing me to use subst would be greatly appreciated. Not forcing me to use illm would also be appreciated. I don't know why you chose to change the 20,000 articles that use ill instead of the 1,000 that use illm. Or why you chose not to allow the parameters to be passed in either order, thereby obviating the change altogether. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Because {{illm}} has more features and the {{ill}} order (with the language first) makes absolutely no sense for something with more than one interwiki link. Regarding allowing the parameters to be passed in either order, that would be possible (by searching for one of ~700 interwiki links; this would slow the template down a lot) but useless, given that you are the only editor who wants to have that done and that it's not exactly rocket science to just use the {{illm}} order. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hawkeye7, you aren't being forced to subst, or to use illm. Once this merger is complete you can continue using {{ill}}, though you will have to change the order you have traditionally placed the parameters. This is being done because (through the TFD process) it was decided that having four templates that did essentially the same thing (provide inter-language wikilinks) was unnecessary. The reason we're sending everything towards the "multi" version is because it had the capability already programmed in to accept multiple languages. However, "multi" can also accept one parameter. Unfortunately, this means the existing usage of the more-popular "interlanguage link" and "ill" need to be converted to the "multi" version. It's not ideal, but it's the best way to proceed.

Regarding your last point - this simply isn't possible on Wikipedia. The first parameter is the first parameter, and the second parameter is the second. {{ill|fr|XYZ}} and {{ill|XYZ|fr}} give XYZ and fr [XYZ]. There is no way for the template to determine by itself "oh, hey, this parameter looks like a language, I guess I'll use it as the language parameter!" Thus, order matters (just like capitalization matters for article titles). The only exception to this is if you explicitly number the parameters: {{ill|1=fr|2=XYZ}} is the same as {{ill|2=XYZ|1=fr}}, but at that point you are still giving the parameters in the proper order. Primefac (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: I'd have thought it would be possible, unless there isn't a consistently-updated database of interwiki links which we could use. It seems a lot of effort for little gain though. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Jc86035, I don't know if #ifexist works across languages, but that's the only thing I can think of to even remotely deal with a parameters-in-random-order problem. Primefac (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Primefac: if (|2= ≠ interwiki code and |1= = interwiki code) then |2= = English Wikipedia article name? This would still make the template even more confusing to use, though. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That would definitely be some incredibly convoluted code, with at least two nested #switch statements. However, such coding doesn't affect this TFD, but illm itself, so for the moment I think it's best to just leave it at that. Primefac (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be some truly bizarre parser function magic. It could be done, but only by driving maintenance costs of the template way up, since very few editors know how to edit complex templates. Further, it would be a substantially more expensive operation than just putting in the parameters in the right order. And responding to Hawkeye7's response to me, I will reiterate that we are not forcing anyone to substitute anything. A bot would take care of the substitutions; that's the point of the {{substonly}} template with the auto parameter. At this time, you can continue to use this template as you always have, even as the substitutions occur. After it's redirected, you'll need to swap the order of the parameters (or number them, as described above). I'm going ahead with the substitutions, as the original dissent was based on a misunderstanding rather than an actual disagreement with the consensus outcome. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

In the TFD, I was speaking up for the hunreds of users of {{ill}}, and for the millions of readers. One of the other participants (a leader in advocating for including every variant in one massive template) mentioned that he had no practical experience using these templates. I do. I use Wikipedias in other languages regularly, and use {{ill}} farily often. As a editor/user, I want it to be simple and easy to understand. {{ill}} has 4 paramters. {{illm}} has 16, including several that I argued against including, such as "Wikidata item" and "Resonator". I can't imagine any circumstances under which we should be sending readers to Wikidata. Most readers don't know what Wikidata is, and they don't care. They care about articles. As for recoding the back end, fine. But it should be a back end. In the interests of keeping things simple, I hope that editors won't have to read the {{illm}} documentation when {{ill}} is all that they need. Is the back end going to be recoded in Lua? Fine, if it's really going to be more efficient. But I rather doubt that all of the code needed to handle 16 paramerters is going to be all that efficient. We did have the alternative of simply ignoring the lesser used variants. If no one uses them, they do no harm. Now we're going to be running back-end code to take care of them every time someone uses a more popular template? Plus the overhead of running bots to subst popular templates into calls to this thing. Was the motivation for this change mainly the urge to tidy things up? I don't mean to relitigate the TFD here. I didn't have the sense that there was a consensus for including everything, but then again I'm not doing the work. Still, once this is all done, I think {{illm}} could be reconsidered, to simplify it and prune away some of the less used functionality. If it's not used, why not move it back into separate templates? – Margin1522 (talk) 07:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Margin1522: It wouldn't be particularly difficult to code this in Lua, and 16 parameters is literally nothing for module-based templates. I agree with your point for Reasonator links and the super/subscript options, though. Wikidata is useful occasionally for those articles which are in several other languages but not English. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 07:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Margin1522: The main reason for merging similar templates (as described at WP:Template creep) is to keep to the human "cost" of maintaining them. When we have three templates that do the exact same thing, that's three templates worth of work maintaining and improving as the needs of the community change. Instead, we can merge them and just maintain one. Keep in mind also that {{illm}}'s 16 parameters don't all need to be used. To create the use case of {{ill}}, it still takes only two (maybe three) parameters, the exact same number it always did. The order's just swapped around a bit. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Well, OK. As I said, I'm not doing the work. As long as the interface is kept simple. About Wikidata, as I recall, someone argued that indicating several languages would be helpful to potential translators. But in my experience, when you have a set of articles on a topic, one of them will be better than the others. Usually it's the either the one in English or the one in the original language. That's the article to translate. If a translator wants to know what other languages have articles on this topic, all he has to do is look at the article's Languages panel. IMO that's how Wikidata is meant to be used. It is very rare that readers need to be informed about multiple languages for a term in the article body. Almost always, one is enough. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Margin1522: Consider an article which has Chinese, French and Japanese versions, but not an English version. One of those might be of higher quality than the others, but few enwiki readers or editors will be able to read more than one of those (which makes it better to link to all three, or the Wikidata item). It's also sometimes the case that some readers don't notice that the Language panel exists. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

One of these articles. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jc86035: s that the list of articles with multiple-language links for article terms? It's a pretty short list. You do have a point about Chinese and Japanese. Google Translate is not going to be much help (I don't know Chinese, but even I know that Chinese: 金服 means "financial services", not "gold clothes"). OTOH, as far as I could tell that list had only two links on Chinese or Japanese topics. One was about a baseball player from Taiwan who had articles in Chinese and Japanese only, so most readers are out of luck there. The other was on a Japanese haiku poet, and luckily the best article by far was in French, not Japanese. Actually that one shouldn't be in the list, because it was a red link in a disamb page. With a little effort the editor who put it there could have translated the lead of the French article and a couple of references, and then we would have an English article for the disamb page. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Remove {{substonly}} from (the documentation page of) this template?

Remove {{substonly}} from this template and its documentation page until if and when further discussion shows a solid consensus to include it, per the discussion above, which shows no consensus for the insertion of that template at this point in time. I suppose an explicit consensus would be needed for the next step after a merge of this template with {{interlanguage link multi}} has been operated. It seems like an unanswered question whether the way the templates were merged, while technically impeccable, is very practical for use by humans. The closer's rationale at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 8#Interlanguage link templates was optimistic in its assumption that "Once that [merge] is accomplished, it should be clear how trivial (or non-trivial) the individual frontend templates are, and whether or not they can be made into redirects, while still retaining any important functionality/syntax." – at this point it doesn't seem clear at all (see non-consensus on the point above), so definitely needs further discussion before this can be implemented by bot. For clarity, my position is that {{Interlanguage link}}/{{ill}} is a non-trivial frontend template (for its simpler to implement syntax); also, project namespace guidance continues to explain how the basic syntax of {{ill}} works without invitation to substitute it, and I see no need to explain a far more complex syntax there where in most cases the simple syntax is all what most editors would need. Further, the current discussion seems fractured in multiple places (e.g. part of the discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Interlanguage links) – fractured discussions are usually a sign that no firm consensus has been established yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Francis Schonken, I invite you to read the section above, if you have not already done so. Adding {{substonly}} to the template does NOT mean that users are required to use {{subst:ill}} (as Hawkeye7 is so keen to continually complain about). It simply means that existing usage of the template will be subst.

That's not what it says. It says: {{Subst only}} should be placed on the documentation subpage of any template that requires substitution rather than transclusion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

As for the replacement of the template itself: again, as stated above (multiple times), {{ill}} will still be available for use and it will function exactly as it used to, with the exception that the order of terms will need to be changed. Clearly the documentation of {{interlanguage link multi}} will need to be updated, but that doesn't mean that this merger shouldn't happen. This template is already a wrapper for "multi" so there's really no reason to convert it properly. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course I read the prior discussion (including some of the fragmented parts of the same discussion on other pages), that should have been clear from what I wrote. So I invite you to read what I contribute to this talk page instead of drawing conclusions about what I didn't say. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, as I mentioned above, we don't have to use {{substonly}} - we could just add the template to Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, and no one would feel like they are forced to subst the template usage. Primefac (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

My issue is with substitutions going on (by bot or otherwise) as long as there's no consensus on the functionality merge being a "job well done". From my contributions above it should be clear that I don't think that the current functionality merge is a job well done from the human user's perspective. The way it was operated it didn't make clear "how trivial (or non-trivial) the individual frontend templates are" (that is a fact illustrated by the lack of consensus in the discussion above). And there's much to be said for merging the functionality of the "multi" template to the simple {{Interlanguage link}} template, keeping the first four parameters of that template as they are now (instead of the functionality merge being done the other way around as it is now). I've had the opportunity to explain the {{ill}} template a few times to fellow editors who had been confronted with it for the first time (e.g. here): providing such guidance to fellow editors is complex enough, and I wouldn't think it a good idea to confront users with the more complex "multi" template for all the instances where the same functionality can be achieved with the easier to implement {{ill}}. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is where I'm genuinely confused, Francis Schonken. After this merger is completed, {{ill}} will still be able to take two parameters (language and Article name). The only thing that changes is the order, which is accurately written on the {{illm}} documentation. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It is far easier to explain

{{ill|de|Hermann Keller|Hermann Keller (Musikwissenschaftler)|Keller, Hermann}}

Keller, Hermann

or

{{ill|scores|BWV 993|Capriccio in E major, BWV 993 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)|''Capriccio in honorem Johann Christoph Bachii Ohrdrufiensis''}}

Capriccio in honorem Johann Christoph Bachii Ohrdrufiensis [scores]

to a fellow editor, than it is to explain

{{Interlanguage link multi|Hermann Keller|de|3=Hermann Keller (Musikwissenschaftler)|lt=Keller, Hermann}}

Keller, Hermann

or

{{Interlanguage link multi|BWV 993|scores|3=Capriccio in E major, BWV 993 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)|lt=''Capriccio in honorem Johann Christoph Bachii Ohrdrufiensis''}}.

Capriccio in honorem Johann Christoph Bachii Ohrdrufiensis [scores]

The {{illm}} documentation doesn't help much for a "simple" explanation of a "simple" use of an interlanguage template: the explanation there requires more technical skills from an inexperienced user than referring to WP:REDDEAL or the {{ill}} documentation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: In your example, "3=" is unnecessary (and it shouldn't be like that when substituted, I think). If you want, we could eliminate having to use |lt= for single-interwikis by allowing the fourth unnamed parameter to be used for it when there isn't a fifth parameter (so you could have {{illm|BWV 993|scores|Capriccio in E major, BWV 993 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)|''Capriccio in honorem Johann Christoph Bachii Ohrdrufiensis''}}, one more character than with {{ill}}). I understand that many Wikipedia editors don't understand template code very well (and for good reason), but this is just reordering the parameters. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 16:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, would like to see that in the sandbox and with some testcases. No re-ordering of parameters should take place w.r.t. {{ill}} as far as I'm concerned: that's the one that is most often implemented in mainspace (i.e. by humans), so it's the less common template (the "multi" one) that should see its parameters re-ordered, if any. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: WRT using the {{ill}} order, that would be a little problematic for the multi template, because we wouldn't really know where to put the second language link (as it goes first for {{ill}}). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 09:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, I strongly oppose an implementation of Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted for this template. The bot should not be performing such substitutions as long as there's no consensus on how all of this should be implemented (and whether or not the functionality merge should be operated differently). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

As far as the "fragmented" discussions go, I don't see any fragmentation. The TFD was a discussion on if a merger should take place. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Interlanguage links was started to determine the final stages of how the merger should take place. This isn't a sign that "consensus hasn't been achieved," it's a sign that I had some questions and wanted more input. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove The change, as implemented, is neither simple nor transparent to humans. Having to substitute the template is an inconvenience. Forcing the {{interlanguage link multi}} to be used instead of the simple is really bad. What does 3 mean? What does lt mean? What is a reasonator? Is that even a word? No use looking it up in the documentation; we decided that it would no longer match what the template does. For clarity, my position is that {{Interlanguage link multi}}/{{ilm}} is a poor backend template. It should be rewritten in Lua. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7, your concerns have been addressed multiple times above. Repeating the same erroneous complaints does nothing. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: As for the "3=" where the template's been substituted, I think that's actually unnecessary because the first two parameters should definitely be in use (it just means the third parameter, except it's numbered instead of unnamed). It should be taken care of by another bot going around though. I am a little confused as to why you're asking what it means, because you're a template editor and probably understand it perfectly well. Where doesn't the documentation match the template? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 14:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- - I do understand that the parameter is numbered; but it is possible to give them both names and positions. In fact, {{ill}} does; but {{illm}} does not have this functionality. What I meant was that when I see "3=" in a template, you still have to go to the documentation to find out what the third parameter represents. It didn't escape my notice that the "3=" was in position three anyway. A red flag. {{ill}} would have allowed "3" to be called "lang-title" and "lt" to be called "en-text". The documentation on {{illm}} is confusing on this point; it says that the third parameter is reasonator, but this does not match the examples. Which may be why the Bot writer decided to play it safe and use "3=". My concern was for the editors who will have to maintain these pages when I'm gone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    - Because... you're the only person on Wikipedia who watches {{ill}} and {{illm}}? Or are you just annoyed that you missed the TFD? Primefac (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
      - I'm not watching {{illm}}. I don't think I missed the TFD (it was a long while ago), but I didn't envisage the merge being such a mess. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
        @Hawkeye7: Where does it even say that the third parameter is for Reasonator? I know the documentation's not perfectly written, but it's not that bad. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
        to reply to me 09:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
        It is listed in the {{illm}} documentation as the third parameter. Such a pity that {{illm}} doesn't have all the features of {{ill}}. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
        @Hawkeye7: What are you even on about? The documentation clearly states "[t]o link to Reasonator, add any value for the parameter |reasonator=". It doesn't even mention the word "third" anywhere. No features were removed from {{ill}} in the process, and I strongly suspect that if they had you would have complained here in April last year instead of now. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
        to reply to me 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
        It's in the template data JSON. This forces the parameters out of order when the Visual editor is used. The aliases seem to still work in {{illm}}, although they are undocumented. We used to be able to write compactly: {{|ill|da|Erik Bohr|Erik Bohr|Erik}}, which produced Erik [da]. Now we can't. If you write: {{illm|Erik Bohr|da|Erik Bohr|Erik}} you get Erik Bohr [da; Erik], an error. You have to write {{illm|Erik Bohr|da|Erik Bohr|en-text=Erik}} which produces Erik Bohr [da]. We lose simplicity and functionality. Or do you have a proposal as to how we can get around this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
        I have updated the documentation to match what I believe it is actually doing. Somebody please check this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
        Not sure what you're talking about with "en-text". The correct parameter is {{{lt}}}. You could write {{tl|illm|Erik Bohr|da|Erik Bohr|lt=Erik}} to get your desired results. This is clearly documented in existing documentation (see the "Piped links" section), but you're welcome to re-write that if you think it could be clearer. The fact that {{ill}} has been fully rewritten as a wrapper of {{illm}} demonstrably shows that {{illm}} has all functionality of {{ill}}, since it's the same template working in the back-end. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
        But "en-text" does work, and is and has always been a supported alias. Whereas "lt" is obscure and confusing. (It was added to {{ill}} in 2013 for compatibility with the illm template.) But you have to demonstrate how we can get the effect positionally, like we used to! It seems that {{illm}} requires us to use a named parameter, and nobody wants that. Can we have the en-text as the fourth positional parameter? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
        @Hawkeye7: As mentioned above, I'll try to get a Lua module stuck together so we can do that more easily. "en-text" is not included in {{illm}} (but in {{ill}}), although I'll add it in the Lua module as an alias. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
        to reply to me 09:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7, Francis Schonken, BU Rob13, and Primefac: I've created a module to replace the template (exactly the same features for now; before making |4= an |lt= alias we have to check that there aren't any templates using |4= without |5= even if |5= is empty; I've added a tracking category for that). Is the self-closing nowiki tag after the tracking categories necessary (modules might work differently)? I've omitted it for now because it's not an HTML tag and won't work without one of the Lua functions. (Testcases page; the template sandbox documentation also functions as such.) —Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks – I really appreciate these efforts, which will amount, I hope, to a more user-friendly and/or familiar interface. In the mean while the bot bravely continues to convert
  {{ill|de|Georg Pölchau|Georg Poelchau|Georg Pölchau}}
to
{{Interlanguage link multi|Georg Pölchau|de|3=Georg Poelchau|lt=Georg Pölchau}}

and
''{{ill|scores|Unser Leben ist ein Schatten|Unser Leben ist ein Schatten (Bach, Johann)|Unser Leben ist ein Schatten}}''

to
''{{Interlanguage link multi|Unser Leben ist ein Schatten|scores|3=Unser Leben ist ein Schatten (Bach, Johann)|lt=Unser Leben ist ein Schatten}}''

etc. (just randomly picking the most recent of these edits that showed up on my watchlist)
The "3=" is not required and not informative. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

So repeating my proposal to keep {{Interlanguage link}} out of Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted until such proposed improvements are tested, agreed upon and implemented. Really, what is the difference between AnomieBOT implementing substitutions now or within a few days, with a better substitution result? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

(replying to Jc86035)) Perhaps I should continue the weird maze this discussion has became by opposing the conversion to a lua module as completely unnecessary and making the template harder to maintain. If you want to make the |4=/|lt= aliasing, you can just do {{#ifeq:{{{5|¬}}}|¬|{{{lt|{{{4}}}}}}|{{{lt}}}}} without converting things to lua unnecessarily. Ppp ery 22:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
No. The documentation page has now been fully protected. There was a TfD discussion wherein consensus was developed to merge these two templates. That consensus has stood without question for over a year while the merge remained in-process at WP:TFD/H. There were concerns by a single editor which were fully addressed by three editors experienced with templates above. The opposition was demonstrably shown to be based on a falsehood - the idea that editors will need to substitute templates in the completed merge. If you believe the TfD consensus was erroneous, you can take that up at WP:DRV or WP:AN. See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE on how to contest a close. Notably, reverting all the changes supported by consensus and attempting to start a discussion over in the hopes that a different group of editors shows up is not among the methods to contest a close. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't believe the TfD was erroneous, I believe the implementation was in violation of the consensus. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  - I can tell you as a TfD closer, frequent editor of templates, and administrator that this method of merging templates is not only standard but desired. The alternative would be a bot run, also supported by the TfD consensus. (Those are the only hats I've been wearing in this discussion, by the way - I have not analyzed whether the merge is desirable, only whether it's supported by consensus). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
    - Per the close: Once that is accomplished, it should be clear how trivial (or non-trivial) the individual frontend templates are, and whether or not they can be made into redirects, while still retaining any important functionality/syntax. Both the functionality and the syntax have to be retained. Frankly, I would think it is apparent that they cannot; but I am willing to entertain more ideas about overcoming this by porting the template to Lua. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
      - Syntax refers plainly to the method of inputting data, not the parameter names. There is a "language", for lack of a better term, spoken at TfD that is commonly understood by participants. It's more-or-less the typical language of computer science. One would not say the syntax of a program has changed when you change a variable name or the name of a function. You would say the syntax has changed when you need to significantly alter how the program runs, in the sense that the actual inputs required are different or the result will unexpectedly change. By reading the discussion, you can confirm this is exactly what was talked about - things like moving away from language codes toward different inputs, etc. I'm happy to help you understand the "language" of TfD if you currently do not, but it does grow a bit tiresome when someone repeatedly states things confidently while editors with substantially more experience in the area are attempting to explain that they are vastly misunderstanding the process. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
        I will bear that in mind in the future. I was under the impression that the changes you mention below (the order and names of the parameters) represented a change in syntax. The main thing I'd still be interested in knowing is why a redirect is so much better than a wrapper, given the amount of pain involved both to implement it, and in ongoing maintenance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
        Hawkeye7, a redirect is preferable because it means any change to the base template will only have to be made once. Let's say that |lt= in {{illm}} gets changed to |linktext=. If {{ill}} is a redirect, then nothing changes, but if it's a wrapper then someone has to remember to go in and change the code of {{ill}} to reflect the update. Basically, it reduces the amount of time and energy we have to expend making sure nothing breaks. Primefac (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
No per BU Rob13. What a lot of unnecessary drama! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
No. I've already indicated my concerns about the complexity of illm, and my feeling that most of the parameters aren't needed in real-life articles. That said, they might be useful sometimes. Somebody might want to put a link to multiple languages in a draft article, or a link to Resonator on their talk page. And if we are going to keep all of these parameters, I think the implementors ought to be allowed to decide how to do it. They have more experience in this than I do. One thing, are all of the existing 22,000 calls (according to the documentation) to {{ill}} going to be replaced with calls to {{illm}} so that later editors will need to read the illm documentation to understand them? That's what I'd like to avoid. Could the bot leave a comment such that the call can be understood from reading the ill documentation only, or is the call going to be similar enough so that the ill documentation can be reconciled to it? – Margin1522 (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Margin1522: All transclusions are currently being replaced with {{illm}} directly, and {{ill}} will subsequently redirect to {{illm}}. As {{ill}} is a simple wrapper of {{illm}}, that's what the substitution does. The syntax will be quite simple. There are only two changes. First, the order of the first two parameters is flipped. Second, in the not-too-common use case of a necessary piped link, the fourth unnamed parameter of {{ill}} is replaced by {{{lt}}} at {{illm}}. These are the only changes, and they're only changes to parameter names. The actual syntax remains simple and easy-to-follow; well, as easy to follow as {{ill}} was. You're welcome to improve the documentation of {{illm}} if you feel it is somehow deficient. If no-one else has done it by the time we're ready to redirect, I'll likely add a section to the top noting the merge of {{ill}} and detailing the changes to parameter names, so editors who formerly used {{ill}} can find exactly what they need to do differently right at the top of the doc. Would that be what you're looking for? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  - @BU Rob13: Thanks, that sounds good. I have no problem with flipping the first two parameters, and lt= actually sounds easier to understand. A new top section would be about 90% of what I'm looking for. The other 10% would be advice to normally go easy on the Wikidata and multiple languages in main-space articles, but that probably needs to be discussed further. – Margin1522 (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    - @Margin1522: You're preaching to the choir there; I used to strongly believe in Wikidata for templates, but lately, I've been increasingly unimpressed with the technical side of that option. I'm also not a huge fan of linking to foreign language articles in the middle of our articles, since that can cause a good deal of surprise. Those things go beyond what participation I'm getting into here, though, which is just as an administrator/editor of templates. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist flooded

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

My watchlist is flooded with notices of substitutions, hundreds of them. The problem is not that it takes me much time to read over them, but that I will miss a (possibly bad) edit before the bot change, - I can't click on every one of them, then on history, to find out. Help! - I will keep coding "ill" to one language, not interested in anything "multi", - a click to the one language will show a reader eventual others if interested. Sorry I missed the March merge discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

This orphan

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It seems to me that because of the recent series of REDIRECTs, this talk page is now orphaned and undiscoverable. Should it be merged with Template talk:Interlanguage link multi? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably. ~~Not sure just a copy/paste move would be appropriate, but a true histmerge would be messy. I'll leave that up to an admin to decide. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)~~ I'll move everything on the page over and give the proper attribution. Primefac (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Done Primefac (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Undone and be aware of the 3rr rule. -- PBS (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Bot corrupting archives and discussions

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Regardless of whether {{interlanguage link}} or {{interlanguage link multi}} is preferred, should the bot be converting archived discussion pages? An archive should remain as is particularly if a bot is changing the words of an editor in a discussion. See User_talk:Martin_of_Sheffield/Archive_5#Template:Timeline-item for a case of where this happened, I've since added a {{nobots}} to the page to stop a repeat. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield, yes, because once {{ill}} becomes a redirect to {{interlanguage link multi}} that particular bit of code will no longer show what it was originally intended to display. You are, of course, welcome to prevent the substitution from happening, but your page won't read properly. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Yeah, the no bots tag just means one more page for someone to go through and manually substitute before we redirect this to {{illm}} in a bit. Keep in mind we're substituting the wrapper, so the output is quite literally exactly the same as it was before substitution. We're not altering anyone's words. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the discussion was not using interlanguage link but about it. On a similar note, it appears that {{tl}} is being substituted, but {{t}} is not - odd. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield: Alternatively, you're welcome to no-wiki out the old output (and place the new syntax that produces the same old output beside it). In the same sense that an update to a template can cause archives to look slightly different, the deletion of a template will cause them to be altered somewhat. If no correction is made, it will just look like a redlinked template, which is the worst possible outcome. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: Why is a redlink the "worst possible outcome"? I would have thought it was the best outcome: anyone reading the archive will see that the template under discussion has gone away. By changing it you imply that the same problematic behaviour has been propagated into the new template. I do realise that this is an edge case, but archives should remain sacrosanct. If it is considered vital to change them, then it needs to be done by an obvious mechanism (footnote, parenthetical or bracketed emendation or simply a strike through) the original source should not be changed. Just my three ha'p'orth. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield, as I explained the last time you asked this question, in this particular instance we did not change the text on the page, nor did we change anyone's comments. We simply made it so the template call showed what it was originally intended to show. If anything, we are attempting to make it so that it does stay unchanged (from a reader's perspective). Primefac (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'd consider the redlink the worst possible outcome because it doesn't retain the historical appearance of the page. A preferable outcome, perhaps, is to use the new {{illm}} code to preserve appearance (which is critical to the discussion there!) while also placing the old template syntax in a comment with a brief note. I erred a bit in mentioning a redlink, though, because this is becoming a redirect. You wouldn't have a redlink, but rather a completely malformed bit of code, which would make the discussion look very different than it should. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Habits

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

As could be expected, the new usage is not widely understood: here the old usage of {{ill}} was continued: {{ill|es|Patricia Adkins Chiti}}. Now what? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There will clearly be a transition period. Editors should be checking their work to make sure they're doing it properly. If not, they should be informed of the change on their talk page. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

As explained just above, I have good reasons to link to exactly one other language, the one used for the translation. I have never a reason to supply "multi". Do you call that "not properly"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, if you want to only link to one language, you only use one language. The only thing that has changed is the order (article title comes first). {{ill}} has been redirected, so you don't even have to use a different template call. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked at {{illm}}: I see how I would place an only language, but I don't see how I would code a piped link, if the English title is not what should be shown on a page, as for a disambiguation, (band) in one of the examples. I also don't want to write "m" for "multi" if I dislike "multi". KISS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, {{ill}} is a redirect to this template, so it works. You don't have to use {{illm}}. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've added the "simple" usage to the doc. It probably still needs tweaking for style, but it should alleviate the worst of the confusion. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I've gone further and added a section specifically directed at former users of {{Ill}}, such as Gerda Arendt, detailing exactly what small changes they need to make to their template code. Could you please review that section of the doc page and give me a thumbs up/thumbs down on whether it's clear, Gerda? As an aside, to ease the transition, I'll be monitoring new transclusions at the Ill and Interlanguage link redirects and notifying editors who apply them incorrectly. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, helpful, thank you, Rob. It will probably have to be rewritten if moved as proposed below. - I have no explanation for something I just noticed in Eibingen Abbey: in the list of abbesses, the one with ill link doesn't follow the line formatting by *, no matter which template is used. I think it worked before the substitution. Help? An image from the article will be tomorrows featured image, so it should look good ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: For me, it looks fine, except the placement of the image on the left causes the very first bullet point to go a bit weird. That couldn't be caused by this template, though, as it isn't used in the first bullet point. Does it still look off to you? If so, it's likely varying based on your screen resolution and/or browser. Could that image possibly be moved a bit? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

This edit request to Template:Ill has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove {{R from move}}, as this wasn't moved to {{Interlanguage link multi}}, it's current target. Ppp ery 01:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: All of the talk pages direct you here - which of the redirects are you referring to? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: {{ill}}, as it says in the box at the top. Ppp ery 02:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: Whoops! Indeed, you are correct.

Done. I replaced with {{R from template shortcut}}, which seems accurate, but let me know if you believe something else is more suitable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I figured out the confusion, Template talk:ill was still pointing to Template talk:Interlanguage link. I'll make sure everything is pointing here. Primefac (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

(per Pppery) Could someone please change {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#if:{{{lt|}}}|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}!}}{{{lt}}}}} to {{{{{|safesubst:}}}#if:{{{lt|}}}{{#ifeq:{{{5|¬}}}|¬|{{{4|}}}}}|{{{{{|safesubst:}}}!}}{{{lt|{{{4}}}}}}}}? This will allow the fourth unnamed parameter to be used for the displayed article name, like in the old {{Interlanguage link}}, when there is only one language being used. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

This wouldn't work. {{illm|Sultanul Abedin|de||es}} has an empty unnamed fifth parameter and correctly generates Sultanul Abedin [de; es] (the es article exists). So an empty unnamed fifth parameter doesn't mean that the fourth unnamed parameter is link text. As was noted above, the only way to recognize the format {{illm|ENG_TITLE|LANG_CODE|LANG_TITLE|LINK_TEXT}} is to check that the value of the fourth parameter isn't in a list of language codes. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

In light of the above comment, please demonstrate the new code in a sandbox and with testcases before re-requesting. Thank you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Considering that, this whole idea of dropping two characters from one parameter name by hardcoding everything seems to have become a solution in search of a problem. (Sidenote: If you really want to do this, you might be able to hack something together with {{#invoke:Page|interwiki|{{{4}}}:}} without maintaining a seperate list.) Ppp ery 12:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead, BU Rob13, and Pppery: Originally in the module which I hacked together for some reason it was supposed to be added after having a tracking category to check for templates not having a fifth parameter, but I forgot about it for some reason. Sorry about that. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jc86035: Ok, then why not (a) implement in Lua as per your draft (b) provide, say, {{ill1}} with the syntax {{ill1|ENG_TITLE|LANG_CODE|LANG_TITLE|LINK_TEXT}} as another entry point to the Lua? It has to be ok to have an empty fifth parameter, whether as {{illm|Sultanul Abedin|de||es}}, {{illm|Sultanul Abedin|de||es|}} or {{illm|Sultanul Abedin|de||es||fr}}.

Personally, I fail to understand why it's considered ok to have a large piece of Lua code implementing a range of different functions (e.g. the family of citation templates) but not ok to do the same in the template language, but that seems to be the current view. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Given that we're discussing this due to a merge discussion that closed with consensus to consolidate these all into one template if possible, I think creating a new wrapper just to provide an alternative parameter name would be a rather horrible idea. Eligible for speedy deletion as per WP:T3, even. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

So exactly why are alternative editor-friendly interfaces to a Lua module that provide the same underlying functionality ok for the citation templates or the string-handling templates, for example, but not for this case? Or are you going to propose merging the {{cite}} and {{citation}} templates or {{loop}} and {{repeat}}, etc.? Providing editors with convenient tools should be the main concern, provided it doesn't involve duplication of the underlying code, which alternative accesses to a Lua module would not. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, thought you were proposing a wrapper. I misread your comment. A Lua thing wouldn't be eligible for speedy deletion, but honestly, I'm guessing it would wind up being merged one way or the other. There's little reason to maintain two identical templates. You can create it if you want, certainly, but I can say from experience that someone (not me) is likely to take it to TfD eventually. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what the purpose of Luafying this template that works perfectly well without using Lua when, as I said in my 12:25 post above, you can do this same feature using Module:Page is. All this for saving three characters ... Ppp ery 20:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The code at {{Interlanguage link}} which the proposed move (above) proposes to delete is a wrapper around {{Interlanguage link multi}}:

{{Interlanguage link multi|{{{2|{{{en|}}}}}}|{{{1|{{{lang|}}}}}}|{{{3|{{{lang_title|}}}}}}
|lt={{{4|{{{lt|{{{display|{{{en_text|}}}}}}}}}}}}
|nobold={{{nobold|}}}
|vertical-align={{{vertical-align|}}}
}}<noinclude>
<!--place categories on /doc page and interwikis on Wikidata-->
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

It does the job without the need for a Lua module so why not oppose the move and keep the wrapper? -- PBS (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There was consensus not to and there's even a speedy deletion criteria (WP:T3) to the effect of the wider consensus not to keep hardcoded wrappers. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

what do you mean by "hardcoded wrappers" and what is the consensus to which are you referring? -- PBS (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

07 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The template has started working incorrectly. See e.g. Sviatoshyn, Sviatoshyn ponds (3=Святошинські ставки:Sviatoshyn ponds|uk|3=Святошинські ставки) -????. --TimeWaitsForNobody (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

My edit was that one that caused the problem, and your revert corrected it. I have corrected my mistake now. If there are any further issues, please ping me. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Because of the recent change and because Wikipedia developers seem to have no trouble (or less than your average software developer) with shattering/demolishing back-compatibility when they change thing, that's probably happened a lot, I think. Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC) (yes, belatedly noticed, a bit ago, the SubstOnly, and: if I have a year to work out how that works, I'll quit everything and devote that year to it...) (edit 2: even so, that would be one template down, and the other templates that are routinely broken by being "fixed" - IMSLP comes to mind immediately - well- yes.)

I'm not sure I catch your point. If you do have one (especially if it's unrelated to this discussion and/or this template), I suggest WT:TFD or WT:WPT depending on which is more relevant. Primefac (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)