Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2015-12/Translations

Transliteration
It is better to remove the transliteration of Russian from the example, as Russian is transliterated automatically. We don't want to encourage useless work. --Vahag (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Vahag (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Russian and other Slavic, Cyrillic-based languages use word stresses (as in the example). Also, for languages not in Module:links in override_translit list, manual transliterations may still be required.
 * The preferred translation into Arabic should include diacritics: بُرْتُقَالَة, not برتقالة. In most cases it will also produce a correct transliteration.
 * Korean translations should not hanja in the transliteration,, not . --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you mention these items because you would like to include language-specific translation information to WT:EL?
 * I'd probably make a separate vote suggesting the addition of these items, assuming this one passes. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, this sentence is not quite accurate: "Note, however, that only widespread romanization systems may be used." Sometimes we use a romanisation system on Wiktionary because we deem it superior, even if it is not widespread. Each language has its own standards. Since you're the only one who's voted, perhaps this could still be amended or removed? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks for noticing that. ✅ --Daniel Carrero (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Translating back from foreign-language idioms into English
Is this rule accurate?


 * Don't 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”. This belongs in the entry for the translation itself.

I left it because it was in the original EL (and I rewrote it a bit for style), but I'd prefer doing the opposite, i.e., adding literal translations from FLs to English in the translation table. See kill two birds with one stone. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am going to wait to see if other people want this sentence in the vote. If no one speaks up, I'm going to delete it. It can be readded later in another vote, if that's the case. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the rule, let me know if you want it back. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This rule is accurate, but I'm not sure it's necessary to have it. Once we specify what belongs in a translation table, we don't need to also specify what does not belong. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

*: vs. **
About this:

"Each language variety is placed on its own line below the group name. A variety with the same language code gets an additional level of indentation without a bullet point (generated by ), while a variety with its own language code gets an additional level of indentation with a bullet point (generated by  )."

Is that true? I believed we only used, never. In the entry water, we only use the former. Please show me an entry that uses the latter. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , please see this message. Thanks. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot about this. It seems that you're right now that I look at it. This distinction is maintained in lists of descendants, but seemingly not in translation tables. I think we should start doing this in translation tables too, but that would require more discussion. --WikiTiki89 21:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I removed the /  distinction from the vote. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

, and
At WT:GP there's a discussion of importing from Wikipedia a template that automatically divides into columns, it looks nice so perhaps make a clause for it or something. Enosh (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Per that discussion, I wholly support: 1) getting rid of and 2) deleting all mentions of  from WT:EL once that's done.
 * For the moment, though, I think WT:EL should still mention the template, while we're still using it. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The arguments against this in the past had to do with browser support. This would need a separate discussion and vote later if we are to do it. --WikiTiki89 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Nitpicking

 * 1) "A L3 POS section would have a L4 Translations subsection." - shouldn't it be "An L3 ... an L4 ..." ?
 * 2) "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 undefined ." This is unexhaustive: assisted editing also offers marking plurals, perfective/imperfective aspect for Slavic verbs, possibly more for other languages. Given that genders are already mentioned above in "Both templates have the same parameters, which include additional information such as genders and transliteration.", it might be better to get rid of this second mention. --Droigheann (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Point #1: Fixed.
 * Point #2: True. I don't know if we can simply edit the vote right now to fix that. This vote already has a proposed amendment to an important rule so if possible I would like to avoid proposing new amendments and asking other people to support them. Both the current and the proposed revisions have the flaw of having an unexhaustive list of parameters, but that does not stop us from using other parameters. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see that. It's not too important, that's why I called it nitpicking, just mentioned it in case the vote fails, is amended and repeated. --Droigheann (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)