Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Template talk:checktrans. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Template talk:checktrans, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Template talk:checktrans in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Template talk:checktrans you have here. The definition of the word Template talk:checktrans will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTemplate talk:checktrans, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Documentation
The text of the template explains itself. Follow the embedded link for more information.
See also {{checktrans-top}} which is a shortcut for this template and the top of a collapsible {{trans-top}} table.
Discussion
Wording
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Any numbering associating translations with definitions is unreliable or incorrect.
As someone who's spent large amounts of time cleaning up translations properly only to have a lazy editor come along a couple edits later, assume without basis that the whole thing is wrong, and invalidate it all with {{checktrans}} I'd strongly prefer this be reworded. I would change that "is" to "may now be" and add something like:
Even non-native speakers can help verify numbered translations by reviewing the article's history, using the number to match the translation to the appropriate definition at the time the translation was added.
Don't we keep ttbc as part of the regular translation table now? Then we can get rid of the -top, -mid and -bottom templates as well. —CodeCat04:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
We still still need a separate section because for polysemous terms, you might not know which definition a given translation applies to, which I think was the original purpose of the checktrans tables. --WikiTiki8904:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Delete per Wikitiki as {{checktrans-top}} et al perform the vital function of grouping translation requests that do not obviously correspond to any existing sense.
I have never been sure of the best way to draw attention to translations that may not correspond to the current wording of any current definition. Separate {{checktrans-top}} tables or separate {{trans-top}} tables?
{{trans-top}} allows one to retain the gloss under which the translations were presumably added. But with the JS to accelerate adding translations, {{trans-top}} would make it too easy to add translations based on a superseded gloss. :::I hope that the JS does not work for {{checktrans-top}}. But {{checktrans-top}} also does not display any gloss, so creators of checktrans tables would have to insert comments and users would need to pay attention to such comments, which can more easily become obsolete than a normally visible gloss. DCDuringTALK12:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Orphaned in mainspace. There are still some transclusions in userspace, and in help pages. The latter just need to be updated, not sure about the former. — Keφr14:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Deleted; help pages were updated (although they too seem RFD-worthy of sorts...). Userspace transclusions were left untouched: users may fix them however they find appropriate. — Keφr21:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
