User talk:Shirayuki

Despite of that, I still oppose introduce more leading format characters to new translation units. For existing ones, it might better to change it incidentally when other part is needed to change.

Also, translation unit separation (if also considered as trivial changes) like T:2559, I think it doesn't involve issues of imposes tasks to translators, since this type of separation is easy to handle during marking revision to be translated, or simply find the units that not separated yet and split it by its proposer.

When dividing a translation unit into multiple translation units, it is easier to update existing translations by simply splitting at line breaks, regardless of the presence of bullet points. In particular, separating each item with a line break allows for easier confirmation of consistency with the original translation. This approach offers translators the advantage of maintaining consistency while responding quickly. Additionally, it helps minimize the impact of the split and avoids unnecessary confusion.

Adding ‎<br> to a sentence that already has translations invalidates the existing translations and creates extra work for translators in each language. If you only want to reduce the width, we should use TemplateStyles .

@Shirayuki was right to revert your change. Your markup was indeed incorrect, and the reason why you added it was also wrong. His edit summary could have been much clearer, but it was not false. Your intentions may have been good, but I consider that your edit was "bad".

Sorry, but I feel the need to defend Shirayuki's actions. As a translator, developer and editor of translation wiki pages, I am fully aware of why he does this. Technical texts, if they are longer, are much more difficult to translate in large blocks.

Next.

Do you know what revision looks like in the database? In that case, you know that is much advantageous for it, if the content of the page consists of a larger number of smaller TUs than vice versa.

Why?

• A paragraph composed from several TU is better for update. Only one sentence usually is add or changed, not the whole paragraph.
• Shortly text is better to understand. Easy TU can be fastly translated and the code expert translate only complicated TU.
• Databases can work more efficiently with repetitives datas and shortly TUs on MW are often repeated.
• When you need to change the link in TU on the origin page, you don't need to revoke the entire paragraph (and do big change). And someone may be actualized it and not must be understand the language – just look at the differences before.

More reasons I can give for it, but reaction in talk page isn't not right place for it, because it limited chars.

I have written an essay on this topic, but it is not finished yet. The weekend starts and I'm going away – User:Want/Splitting translatable paragraphs or not?

I generally avoid translating long translation units composed of multiple sentences. This is because there is a high risk that they will be modified later, rendering the translations invalid.

Additionally, there are translation administrators who invalidate the entire paragraph’s translation for trivial edits, such as changing quotation marks.

From major changes to trivial ones, the task of investigating each modification and reflecting it in the translation is a painstaking task.

This quotation marks example is not so good for two reasons:

1. I'm also updating the translations myself, so no one actually has to worry about it. (I haven't finished it yet for all languages because there's a lot of other mess to clean up.)
2. Even if I didn't, addressing those updates is trivial: just look at the list of outdated messages and checking the diffs.

Updating translations after splitting a paragraph is much harder. You do this splitting, but you don't bother to update the translations. Please stop.

Sorry, but you obviously have no idea what the effect of marking a page for translation on a multilingual wiki is. I intend to make it clear in that essay, but I'll be off the internet in a little while.

I fully agree with both Shirayuki and Want.

I am a translator. It is much easier for me to work with a shorter text than with a long one with several sentences. I'd rather register incorrect text or finesse of the language. Also, a shorter text is more advantageous when using text hints in the Translator. Long texts are actually not displayed at all and the advantage of the hints is greatly suppressed. I don't understand at all why a text made up of several long sentences should be divided three times by semicolons. Another problem is the marking of untranslatable texts ('shape'). I get lost in it in long paragraphs, just like marking with different texts used to be. It just doesn't suit me and I like to use shorter sentences. I propose a very extensive discussion on this topic with a large number of people involved in translations and preparation for translations. It is a really complex topic and solutions cannot be made with regard to already translated texts. That's the development tax.

I agree that translatable units should be short. The question is how short should they be and how to achieve it technically.

The right way to do it is to write shorter paragraphs from the start. The responsibility for this should be on the original page's author. A ten-sentence paragraph is a bad idea in any case, but a five-sentence paragraph is OK.

Taking a paragraph that is already short and splitting it into even smaller parts is a bad idea. I haven't seen anyone except Shirayuki doing this. It's an exaggeration that does more harm than good.

I started a discussion about this a couple of weeks ago on this page: m:Talk:Translatability

Thanks for the reply. I had quite a few problems with Shirayuki's attitude at the beginning, but so far, apart from a few individuals, I have not found such an enthusiastic and especially fast collaborator. I understand him. It probably wouldn't be out of place for you to talk about this problem in a big plenum. It's really up for a great discussion without jumping to conclusions!

I don't understand, please give an example. Thank you

Thank you for reading the discussion. See the reply immediately above (at this point in time).

This is related to your addition of variables to complex translation units, for example in Special:Diff/6624825/6626346, and my subsequent partial reversion and splitting of those translation units in Special:Diff/6627645.

I had thought it would be better to split them first before adding variables, but if you hadn't added the variables, I wouldn't have felt the need to actively split them.

I understand. The easiest solution is to leave the TU as they are and not divide them. The fact is that some TUs are so absurdly long or rather complex that they deserve to be divided. I support you in that. And thanks for your cooperation

Yes, it's usually good to split a very long paragraph. But the right way to do it is to split the paragraph into two or three paragraphs in the source and not to add tags in the middle of the paragraph.

Don't be mad, but this sentence doesn't make sense to me. My proposal: If during the translation I encounter the need to split a paragraph, I will let you know and ask for an assessment. It is a way to understand each other. Thank you