Template talk:SIC
This template is more succinct than that in the main wikipedia.
Bad word may be more understandable. Tabletop (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately when the text is copied, "Bad word" is what is picked up rather than "Good word". I think it would be better to display "Good word", if available, as is done in the French version of the template. The typical reader is not interested in all the printing faults, and the typical copy and paste is probably not either. Library Guy (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC) On reflection, I have to acknowledge that the present behavior is the behavior of "sic" usage in the printed world, but in that situation, the correct information is not supplied. So maybe the solution is an alternative template based on fr:Modèle:Corr. Library Guy (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- The purpose of the template is not to correct the work, instead to identify that the word(s) are displayed as per the published work. It is a philosophical difference. A correction is an annotation. Noting that the second parameter is optional, and many of us don't use it. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Default to Invisible? edit
Complete interloper here, but wouldn't it be preferable to change the behavior of this template so that if no parameters are supplied, it does not display {{{1}}} but is instead invisible to the end reader (a la the {{Sic}} template)?
If so, I believe this could be achieved by just adding a vertical bar in the final invocation of the first parameter:
. . . <!-- else -->|{{tooltip|{{{target|{{{1|}}}}}}}}| . . .
The full version of the template code would then be:
<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Modern|{{{texttip|{{{2}}}}}}|<!-- -->{{#if:{{{texttip|{{{2|}}}}}}<!-- then -->|{{tooltip|{{{target|{{{1}}}}}}|[sic] '{{{texttip|{{{2}}}}}}'|nodash={{{nodash|{{{3|}}}}}}}}<!-- else -->|{{tooltip|{{{target|{{{1|}}}}}}}}|[sic]}}|nodash={{{nodash|{{{3|}}}}}}}}<!-- -->}}</includeonly><noinclude> {{documentation}} </noinclude>
Hope I'm not suggesting something that has already been debated and decided against, but my opinion is that eliminating the chance of getting an ugly {{{1}}} in the middle of a text would be a good idea. Biggins (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Biggins: The purpose of {{SIC}} is to wrap the word and display that the word is as presented per the text, rather than being a poor transcription. We had situations where people were opening and correcting words that were presented as per the text; we also had situations where you went to correct words only to find out that it was per text, and not needing correction. If you wish for a silent presentation, then please utilise {{sic}}. There is no value in using SIC without parameters, so having it display nicely when incorrectly used doesn't seem to be of value. Of course, I could be misunderstanding what you are asking. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: ah, that makes sense. I think I was coming at it more from the point of view of a relatively new editor who might not know the difference, or would have to look it up a bunch of times to remember. To minimize visible errors (and new editor confusion), I do think it would make sense for an instance of the {{SIC}} template that mistakenly doesn't have parameters to basically act the same as {{sic}}. And while I agree that to the extent that we don't think the learning curve is that steep then the issue is moot, my personal preference would still be to just have a single sic template that acts like the {{sic}} template if it doesn't have any parameters, or allows for wrapping like the {{SIC}} template if it has one or two. But your comment helps me understand why it makes sense to keep them distinct, too. Thanks for clarifying! Biggins (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Biggins: I have emphasised in the documentation that one parameter is mandatory. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: ah, that makes sense. I think I was coming at it more from the point of view of a relatively new editor who might not know the difference, or would have to look it up a bunch of times to remember. To minimize visible errors (and new editor confusion), I do think it would make sense for an instance of the {{SIC}} template that mistakenly doesn't have parameters to basically act the same as {{sic}}. And while I agree that to the extent that we don't think the learning curve is that steep then the issue is moot, my personal preference would still be to just have a single sic template that acts like the {{sic}} template if it doesn't have any parameters, or allows for wrapping like the {{SIC}} template if it has one or two. But your comment helps me understand why it makes sense to keep them distinct, too. Thanks for clarifying! Biggins (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)