Template talk:Infobox terminology

I don't like this template being used as a replacement for part of an article's introduction, or the introduction of natural languages other than English to such a prominent position in the article. My biggest complaint is that it's no longer obvious that the primitive in question has other names, which is likely to cause a lot of confusion as readers think they have found the wrong article. Per Wikipedia, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)." Moving additional names to the infobox is very much at odds with this convention, making APLWiki more difficult to read for those used to it. That page also emphasizes that the infobox should be as short as possible, which I think rules out foreign-language names, especially given that many of them are cognates. Of course we can't maintain entire separate encyclopedias like Wikipedia can, but it seems like it would be much better to have individual pages such as "German names for primitives" if that's considered important. Although I have to question that idea: won't German-language sources would primarily use the primitive symbols, making it pretty easy to figure out which is which? Was there a particular incident that motivated adding foreign languages here? Marshall (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this was an experiment to see how it'd look (which is why it was only applied to two articles). I'll roll it all back and we'll go for a single Terminology article instead. This was prompted by the German APLers trying to standardise when speaking about APL concepts like trains and quad-names, in particular for the purpose of subtitling English-language videos. Adám Brudzewsky (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)