Template talk:Versions

Additional templates on the individual works?
I cannot recall the detail of the original conversation, on whether on each of the works, we wanted to add similar, or something like it, to the individual works. If we think that is of value, then it would be worthwhile adding that suggestion to the template page. -- billinghurst (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should but I don't think similar is worded right for that, maybe a parameter that defaults to the current but can be set to say that there are similar "editions" would be useful.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

translations is redundant
I've suggested at Template talk:Translations, that it should be merged to Versions. There is no meaningful difference between distinguishing the English translations of a work and distinguishing the editions of a work originally in English. The other uses of translations don't belong in the mainspace as they relate to the author/translator.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Published translations might work here, if that is what you mean, an example would be helpful. I've toyed with linking originals of works here, on 'versions pages', there is of course the iw:links in the sidebar. There can be, and often is, a huge difference between a work and its translation, and it not our position to judge that. See Twain's essay on the problems of translation. cygnis insignis 13:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question; so if I miss the mark here I apologize. I'm suggesting that Template:Translations be merged with Template:Versions because a "Translation" is simply a "version" where the first edition wasn't English.  The Translations template does not appear to be intended to show translations of works we have here but rather the different English translations of works we have here, for example Tao Te Ching; I think I earlier changed that from a simple dab to versions because I didn't know that we had translations; but now knowing that, I don't see the value that is added by a special template for translations, translations are simply English versions of a work that we don't have in it's original language because it obviously wasn't English and this project is only for English.  The documentation for translations is more robust and it has more options, but most of the options relate to identifying all of the translations by a certain author, information that doesn't seem any different from the information that should already be on the author's authorspace page.  So, I don't see the point of that template.  That template can't stand for this one, as that would not be at all intuitive, but this one could easily stand for that one.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a question, the response only relates to published works, i.e. books that have a place in a library. Of those, there are many wrinkles and complexities. With some works the best place for links may be here, or the author page, in many cases the relationship between works is best resolved at wikipedia. The text itself provides an opportunity to link references to other versions—translations of one type or another—this is more powerful than judgement and secondary interpretations in indexing by users here. An assertion that translating is simply editing is, I believe, unsupportable. The development of indices here is very much under construction, the solution for each may change as more material is made available. I've given a lot of thought to this, and have found solutions as I worked with different material, I've come to the conclusion that adding content, linking the authors and works, then using that to build the encyclopedia is more productive and useful. There is some advantage in adding to author pages, and sorting titles as versions and dabs, but there is diminishing returns and links can become suggestive, eg. this English version is the same as the original. If someone is inclined to build on the indexing of versions and translations of Cinderella (and Catskin, and so on), the translations template would probably have value if they want to avoid adding encyclopedic levels of detail here. cygnis insignis 06:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I thought you were asking me for an example and I wasn't sure of what. But I'm not understanding your differentiation between published and unpublished works.  In fact, I'm not clear on whether you are saying that we need a separate translations template or if you're unsure.  I suppose I could see a use for a variant of the translations template if there were (as there are with Tao Te Ching), multiple Wikisource translations - though I'm not sure that's something we want to encourage.  My point is simply that the versions template is just a simpler and broader version of the same template; too many templates makes it difficult to find the right one.  All the documentation should be in one place.  Not to mention that the two templates don't even link to each other, that's an easy enough fix; however, without detailed documentation at both templates one can't know when to use which (and I can't envision when versions wouldn't be sufficient.  A single work could easily have both a dab and a versions/translations template; however, it would never need both a versions and a translations template. Examples that I'm working with: Three Books of Occult Philosophy could have a versions/translations template, in this case all "translations" are really "versions" of the 1651 translation by John French and at present we only host one; so I haven't bothered; but if I did, versions would do everything already.  The Art of Cookery needs a dab because there are multiple works by different authors by this name and then the The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy needs a versions because there about 20 editions and we only have one, but not the first one.  I just don't see that this versions pages would be any different if the work were in French and there were 20 English translations.  Can someone provide an example of where translations would add some value (that couldn't easily be incorporated into versions - in fact I'd suggest most of the functionality ought to be here anyway).--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting that the translations template might link to other languages or to the original, then I think you have a point but the former is not contemplated by the current translations documentation and would seem to be a whole other purpose. Whereas the latter could and should occur everywhere possible but would be just as easy to do on a versions template.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that there is a separate template translation that has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm mentioning the issue on Template talk:Translations.  This may be even more reasons to merge to get rid of the ambiguous name!  Maybe Template:Translation and Template:Translations should both become dab and both should change their names; though that's a discussion for elsewhere.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many valid points to consider above, it is a situation that is complicated by the need to present a number of possible targets, an undiscriminating choice, quite different to the redirect or disambiguation pages at the other place. Translations are complicated by the language separation; that decision was made but the solutions to dealing with the consequences are not completely resolved. I think the prudent thing to do at this stage is cross link them all, notes the forks, and see what solutions emerge as works that are in some way similar are added and indexed. I haven't much investment in other templates, I've successfully experimented with this one, but I'm extremely wary because inflexible template solutions can often create as many problems as they solve. I don't see how merging them immediately will help anything. cygnis insignis 10:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

section name
I've changed the section name from "disambiguation" to the "multiple versions or editions of this work". I know it's a bit wordy but see it in action here Tao Te Ching. Disambiguation is a wiki-specific word that suggests to me that these are different things by the same name; in fact these are essentially the same work and it's a more of a cross reference. If my suggestion for merging translations to here were to be implemented this would obviously have to change to a variable.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the text altogether, the note explains the nature of the page. cygnis insignis 09:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, makes sense.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

notes= parameter
Do we really need to to link to the disambiguation section of the style guide? How does this help the user? It seems to confuse the purpose of the page and muddy the information it is intended to convey, I notice translations doesn't have this link.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The style guide distinguishes the different types of navigational page, a section named with that unusual word (though it is familiar to wikipedia users). These are some of the related matters that need resolving, a slow steady pace is needed to see how this can all fit together. cygnis insignis 09:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, just listing issues. The categories will get an editor where they want to go if they are in place.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 09:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I glad that others are taking an interest in something I think about a lot, and noting some of the hundreds of aspects to this. cygnis insignis 10:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nearly pointless, anti-version intentioned parameter added
I added an extra parameter dubbed "Content" into this template to temporarily meet the needs of the work at The Dead Man's Chest. I hope to remove it once a better solution, to show only the combined original quatrain published some time after its first appearance someplace, comes to mind. It does not effect anything else, and I apologize if it appears as a compromise. On the other hand, its use may actually prove versatile for dab pages, but I can't see anything else or now other than this instance. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, removed. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)