Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-12/Translations

Translations
Voting on: Editing WT:EL. See.

Current text:


 * Translations
 * See Translations for more.


 * ONLY add translations that you are CERTAIN of. If you aren’t familiar with a language, or aren’t sure of a particular translation, it is far better not to add it than to risk adding an incorrect translation.
 * NEVER use automatic translation software to generate translations from English into a language you don’t speak. Automatic translations into English are likewise problematic. Translation software rarely gives accurate results.
 * DO NOT COPY from translating dictionaries (bilingual or multilingual) as this may constitute copyright violation. This applies to dictionaries both in print form and online. Dictionaries that are out of copyright may be used.

Translations are to be given for English words only. In entries for foreign words, only the English translation is given, instead of a definition. Any translation between two foreign languages is best handled on the Wiktionaries in those languages.

English inflected forms will not have translations. For example, will not, as it is the plural and third-person singular of. In such entries as have additional meanings, these additional meanings should have translations. For example, the noun should have translations, but the present participle of  will not.

The translation section is separated into a number of divisions that are keyed to the various meanings of the English word. Each division is separated into a distinct collapsible navigation box by use of the translation section templates (see below for example.) The boxes are each headed by a summary of the translated meaning.

Within each box, the languages for which translations exist are listed in two columns by their English names in alphabetical order. The language name is preceded by a bullet (generated by * ) followed by a colon and the translations into that language. The two columns within the collapsible navigation box are obtained by adding the template just before the first language,  halfway down, and  at the line after the last translation.


 * Translation dos and don’ts (subsection)
 * Do use the template for each translation. This will create a link to that word in this Wiktionary and a small link to the Wiktionary for that language.    References for the translation should be on that other page rather than in the translation list. If you think  is too complex, simply enclose the translation in square brackets.


 * Do add a transliteration or romanization of a translation into a language that does not use the Roman alphabet. Note however that only widespread romanization systems may be used. See Transliteration.


 * Do not link the language name
 * Correct:
 * Portuguese: cachorro
 * Incorrect:
 * Portuguese: cachorro


 * Do provide the grammatical gender of the translations of nouns, if appropriate, giving the parameters m, f, n and c for “masculine”, “feminine”, “neuter” and “common” respectively to.


 * Do not add the pronunciation of the translation or detailed grammatical information: such information should be provided on the page for the translation itself.


 * Do ensure that multiple translations are given in full. For example, for the German for “ankle”, which is Knöchel or Fußknöchel, write:
 * German: Knöchel, Fußknöchel
 * rather than just combining the two as “(Fuß-) Knöchel” or similar, which is liable to be misunderstood.


 * Do not give literal (word-for-word) translations of idioms, unless the literal translation is what is actually used in the target language. Most idioms do not translate word for word. For example, the idiom “none of your beeswax” cannot be translated into German literally as “nicht dein Bienenwachs”, as this does not have the same meaning in German; an idiomatic translation is “nicht dein Bier” (which means, literally, “not your beer” in English).


 * Do not give translations back into English of idiomatic translations. For example, when translating “bell bottoms” into French as “pattes d’éléphant”, do not follow this with the literal translation back into English of “elephant’s feet”. While this sort of information is undoubtedly interesting, it belongs in the entry for the translation itself.

Here is an example (a shortened version of the entry for orange) illustrating some of the conventions:

Noun

 * 1) The fruit of the orange tree.
 * 2) The reddish-yellow colour of an orange.

Translations

 * French: orange
 * German: Apfelsine, Orange
 * Japanese: オレンジ


 * Russian: апельсин
 * Serbo-Croatian:
 * Cyrillic: наранџа, поморанџа
 * Roman: narandža, pomorandža


 * German: Orange
 * Hebrew: כתום


 * Latvian: oranžs

... ...
 * Translating words which are not lemmas in a target language (subsection)
 * When a translation in the target language is not a lemma form, use alt parameter to display the translation but use lemma-forms as the page name, e.g. the Russian translation of asleep links to the Russian verb ("to sleep") but displays "спящий" (lit. "sleeping"), which is an equivalent of "asleep".
 * Russian:


 * Translating words without an exact equivalent in the target language (subsection)
 * When there is no single word equivalent in the target language, use with embedded wikilinks for the individual words. For example the Russian translation of livelihood:

... ...
 * Russian: средства к существованию

Result:


 * Russian: средства к существованию

), then the language name, followed by a colon and the translations into that language.
 * References
 * A few languages are grouped together. (for example, varieties of Arabic, Chinese and Norwegian) The group starts with the macrolanguage name on its own line. Each language variety is placed on its own line below the group name. The language vareties have an additional level of indentation without a bullet point (generated by ).
 * Each translation uses one of these templates: or . See them for their documentation. Both templates have the same parameters, which include additional information such as genders and transliteration. The difference between the two templates is that  has an additional superscript link between parentheses — like this: (fi) — to the respective foreign-language Wiktionary.
 * Different translations in the same language are separated from each other by commas.
 * At the end of each translation table, there is an "Add translation" JavaScript gadget, which automatically formats each new added translation with either or, with the parameters filled appropriately. The gadget also places the language in the correct place in the alphabetical list of languages.
 * Every translation table should have a gloss at the top, supplied as the first (and only) argument of . There is a JavaScript gadget to edit the gloss directly, use the "±" button before the gloss. When the table is collapsed, only the gloss is visible. When the table is expanded, the available translations are shown.
 * In some cases, use instead of a translation table, to generate a link to another entry where the translation table is located.
 * The language names should not be linked.

Concerning what information should be provided for each translation:
 * Add a transliteration or romanization of a translation into a language that does not use the Latin script, except for those languages where the romanization is supplied automatically by the software. See Transliteration and romanization.
 * Provide the grammatical gender of the translations of nouns, if appropriate, giving the parameters m, f, n and c for “masculine”, “feminine”, “neuter” and “common” respectively to.
 * References, pronunciation and detailed grammatical information for the translation should be on the foreign-language entry, rather than in the translation list.
 * Write each translation in full form; don't merge separate translations. For example, for the German for “ankle”, which is Knöchel or Fußknöchel, write:
 * German: Knöchel, Fußknöchel
 * rather than just combining the two as “(Fuß-) Knöchel” or similar, which is liable to be misunderstood.

About idioms, inflections and literal translations:
 * Don't translate an idiom word-for-word into another language, unless the literal translation is what is actually used in the target language. For example, the idiom “none of your beeswax” cannot be translated into German literally as “nicht dein Bienenwachs”, as this does not have the same meaning in German; an idiomatic translation is “nicht dein Bier” (which means, literally, “not your beer” in English).
 * When a translation in the target language is not a lemma form, use the  parameter to display the translation but use the lemma forms as the page name, e.g. the Russian translation of asleep links to the Russian verb  ("to sleep") but displays "спящий" (lit. "sleeping"), which is an equivalent of "asleep".
 * Russian:


 * When there is no single word equivalent in the target language, use with embedded wikilinks for the individual words. For example the Russian translation of livelihood:
 * Russian: сре́дства к существова́нию


 * Result:
 * Russian: сре́дства к существова́нию


 * Rerefences

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Beer parlour/2015/December
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/Translations

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposal: To address a point raised by the opposers, I suggest editing one item.
 * Current text:
 * Only English entries should have Translation sections. Foreign-language entries (including Translingual) should not have Translations sections; they link back to their English counterparts in the definitions. Any translation between two foreign languages is best handled on the Wiktionaries in those languages.
 * Proposed text:
 * Translation sections are often found in English entries. Some Translingual entries for taxonomic names have Translation sections; there is no consensus at the time, whether they should be kept. Foreign-language entries (Spanish, French, Portuguese, etc.) should not have Translations sections; they link back to their English counterparts in the definitions. Any translation between two foreign languages is best handled on the Wiktionaries in those languages.
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) . Despite the fact that it is wordy and not necessarily appropriate for EL, that is chiefly a problem with our indecision on how to separate policy from how-to guides. As it stands, this text is substantially better than what it replaces. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 02:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you support editing 1 item of the new Translations text per my proposal above? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  provided that the proposed modification regarding translingual sections is made. -- Andrew Sheedy (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but there are many nuances on specific transliterations rules and practices as I posted in the Beer parlour, though. Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 03:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Striking late vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  — Taxonomic names (in Translingual sections) should also be permitted translation tables. I believe that DCDuring also thinks this. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you support this vote and my proposal above, thus rewriting 1 item to address the issue of Translingual translation tables? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please excuse the long delay in my responding to you. That improves matters, yes, but I still have some problems with the proposed text, namely:
 * The second translation table (both in its code and in what is generated) gives as the Latvian translation of . The ISO 639-1 code for Latvian is lv; the code you used, lt, is the ISO 639-1 code for Lithuanian. (This came to my attention because I have the OrangeLinks gadget enabled.)
 * In the bullet list preceded by “Concerning which entries should have a Translation section:”, re “Only English lemmas, and not inflected forms, should have translations.”, besides the issue of translation tables in Translingual entries, there are also cases where English non-lemmata should get translation tables: I'm thinking mainly of abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms. Sometimes, what a person wants is a translation of an abbreviation that is itself an abbreviation. For example, I may be writing a footnote in German, and want to know that is properly translated ; granted, I could've gone to, looked for the pertinent translation, gone to , and then looked for a note of the abbreviation there, though that would've been rather more inconvenient than is necessary. Sometimes, languages use abbreviations of terms in other languages for native words or phrases; for example, English uses  where German uses . Also, there are cases where an English abbreviation has a translation in another language which is an abbreviation, but is an abbreviation of a phrase that is an unidiomatic sum of its parts; for example, the English abbreviation  is translated by the Welsh . And then there are acronyms and initialisms of proper nouns whose lemmata shouldn't get entries in any language; for example, , which is translated by the French . For all those reasons and probably others, some English non-lemmata should have translation tables. This is probably my biggest problem with the proposed text as it currently stands.
 * In the bullet list preceded by “About the layout and wiki markup of the Translations section:”:
 * “When the table is expanded, the available translations are shown.”, in its context, is misleading; please add an "also" so it reads “When the table is expanded, the available translations are also shown.”
 * “In some cases, use instead of a translation table, to generate a link to another entry where the translation table is located.” is unnecessarily vague. How about “In cases of exact synonymy, use  instead of a translation table, to generate a link to the entry for the synonymous term or sense where the translation table is located.” instead?
 * In the bullet list preceded by “Concerning what information should be provided for each translation:”, re “Provide the grammatical gender of the translations of nouns, if appropriate, giving the parameters m, f, n and c for ‘masculine’, ‘feminine’, ‘neuter’ and ‘common’ respectively to .”, that is a far-from-exhaustive list of the ways that the third parameter of / can be specified. Droigheann has already raised this concern at Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/Translations. At the very least the text should note that the list "m, f, n and c" is not exhaustive.
 * I'm sorry to be so discontented about this. You would have my full support if the issues I raise above were addressed. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no problem in raising points of disagreement. This vote will probably fail, I plan to re-create it, improved with the points raised here. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that the abbreviation of a lemma is also a lemma. USA is categorized in Category:English lemmas and it is not categorized in Category:English non-lemma forms.
 * Compare:
 * PC (meaning personal computer) is a lemma, it is categorized in Category:English lemmas and can have a translation table.
 * PCs (plural of PC) is a non-lemma, it is categorized in Category:English non-lemma forms and can't have a translation table.
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that categorisation is unfortunate. Abbreviations, initialisms, and acronyms are — and should be — with alternative forms; however, none of them are lemmata and, therefore, none of them should be in the categories for lemmata. (It is our use of headword-line templates that brings about this miscategorisation.) Note that, if the rule be that all terms categorised as lemmata may be given translation tables, that would mean that alternative forms could also be given translations tables; consider, for example: could there ever be any benefit in having translation tables both at the true lemma  and at the alternative-form entry ? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We can handwave the lemma/non-lemma issue by simply stating in WT:EL: "Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms may have translation tables."
 * But, about that distinction: if LOL is not a lemma, then what is the lemma of LOL, or maybe it does not have a lemma? Would someone argue that laugh out loud is the lemma? It is a sum of parts, and it only makes sense as a semantic unit (a non-sum of parts) when it is abbreviated: LOL. Wiktionary defines lemma as "The canonical form of an inflected word; i.e., the form usually found in dictionaries." If we can find LOL and PC in dictionaries, it makes me think that PC is a lemma while PCs is a non-lemma (an inflected form).
 * The answer to your last question is: no, but I don't see why and  can't be called both lemmas (That is, you could publish two dictionaries and make  the headword in one and  the headword in the other, right? Maybe if they are dictionaries in different dialects.), even if we actually "lemmatize" one entry and point to the other entry as an alternative form, it is just a form of organizing our dictionary, it does not mean that the -ise form is less of a lemma than -ize, does it? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The 1997 draft addition to the OED entry for “lemma, n.¹” includes the lexicographical definition of as “A lexical item as it is presented, usu. in a standardized form, in a dictionary entry; a definiendum.” So, basically, the lemma is the form of the lexeme that gets defined. By that definition, I would say that  has a lemma, viz., but that  has three lemmata, viz. , , and . (I suppose it depends to what extent you consider  to be a definition. It can all get a bit academic.) But re "it does not mean that the -ise form is less of a lemma than -ize", well yes it does; as you said, "it is just a form of organizing our dictionary", but unless you're going to maintain parallel sets of definitions at both spellings, one will be the lemma, and the other will not.
 * When all is said and done, I agree with your hand-waving idea, which I think is the thing of practical import here. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  - DCDuring TALK  19:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A small number of taxonomic names already have translation tables. Is that content to be deleted?
 * Some have said that the translation table should be at the English vernacular name for the taxon. Many a taxonomic name has no English vernacular name, often because the referent is not native to or studied in English-speaking countries. Some such have a vernacular name in another language because the referent is native to or studied in another language.
 * In addition, we do not always have an English vernacular name entry where one exists and often have no vernacular name in the definition, so someone looking to place a translation has no place to put it.
 * The placement of translation tables in taxonomic name entries also offers the possibility that we can improve the specificity of vernacular names by establishing a connection to the specific native referent and that we can elicit requests for translations in languages spoken where the taxon referent is actually found. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you support this vote and my proposal above, thus rewriting 1 item to address the issue of Translingual translation tables? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can only vote on something that I know something about. Further, it is my responsibility to be an advocate for an area which few others know or care much about. This is the one aspect of the proposal that I know and care about and few others do. DCDuring TALK 08:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I proposed an amendment to the vote so that Translingual translation tables are not explicitly disallowed by this vote. Is there anything wrong with the amendment I proposed? Note that the status quo is "English words only". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  It is excessively wordy. Paragraph "Here are the collapsible tables that are the result of the above wiki markup" should not be there at all, IMHO. I am no fan of .  The change is rather large to review; since order of certain parts was swapped, the diff does not show as good a comparison as it should. Too many changes are made each of which actually deserves thought. For instance, switching Russian: апельсин to Russian: апельси́н is a topic for a separate vote, deserving its own discussion; I am rather opposed to this change. This change was made in the mainspace but without vote; with this vote, this change would become officially supported, while this vote does not link to any discussion explaining why this change is a good thing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2)  as per others, particularly over taxonomic names. -Xbony2 (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Decision
3-4-0 Fails --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)