Topic on User talk:Shirayuki/Flow

 Done

After viewing the recent edits on Extension:Scribunto/Lua reference manual, I have some questions:

• Currently, separators in some compound sentences are included in <tvar> tags, it seems fine to reducing variable usages and well formatting in languages like English. But in some language, Simplified Chinese for example, is more prefer to use 、 as separator to express such relation, or use full-width comma ，, is there have a proper way to both simplify translation units and formentioned translation issue?
• I noticed that some translation units have formatting characters (e.g. the starting *) included, it's proper to include them in translate units? Since some translators might lose such formatting character to cause formatting issue, although is a rare situation.
• Some translation units have multiple bullets (like T:2559), should them be separated or using multiple lines starting with bullet to list them? I noticed that the surrounding translation units contains only one item, should it be consistent with others?

Many translation units already have translations in multiple languages. Forcing a trivial change, such as removing bullets from translation units, imposes the tedious task of updating existing translations on translators.

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.

I’m not talking about new translation units. If you insist on removing the formatting characters from existing translation units, please take responsibility for updating the existing translations.

• https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translations&message=Translations%3AExtension%3AScribunto%2FLua_reference_manual%2F1295

K

Stop insisting on making edits that remove formatting characters and respect the existing translations.

How many more times do I have to explain this for you to understand?

I have nothing to say, I will just quote what you just said "please take responsibility for updating the existing translations", if you not accept what I did, its fine for me to keep the current text, I don't realy care about that.

See https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translations&message=Translations%3AExtension%3AScribunto%2FLua_reference_manual%2F1295

With the translation units being split, the existing translations have become invalidated, and the changes from that split have not been reflected. Who will be responsible for updating them?

I will responsible to source edits I made, absolutely. In fact, I have listed changed unit numbers for my last change, and I believe I'm ready to find these by numbers change them (if translations is already up to date in its literal meaning) when you approve it, but you didn't.

For unit 1295, if you want to blame someone, I'm sure that you find the wrong person since I checked edit I made in that day. Although, since you mention the unit, I will help splitting it if existing translations are up to date, as I mentioned above. For translations that not up to date, its more safe to wait a translator using that language, since non-formatting changes is responsible to these translators.

Since you are saying that you are willing to remove formatting characters from translation units, even if it requires you to update each translation in other languages one by one, I will trust you and approve your edits.

Simply editing the source page does not invalidate translations; translations are only invalidated once a translation administrator approves the page, marking it for translation. Thus, I showed unit 1295 as an example by marking it experimentally, with no intent beyond demonstrating this process.

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.

If you absolutely need to change the comma style within ‎<tvar>...‎</tvar>, the following can be used without creating tedious work for translators:

• A{{int|comma-separator}}B → A, B
• A{{int|and}}{{int|word-separator}}B → A and B