Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs

Rationale
Translation hub entries have the following benefits, shown on the examples of German and Czech but pertaining to non-English languages in general:
 * Make English-to-German translation convenient: if you want to know how to translate English studies to German, it is most convenient to go to an ordinary entry and find your translation where you expect it to be. It is much less convenient to have to use the search function for "English studies", which finds the following list of items as per the search result page: English studies, Anglicist, studies, anglistika, Anglistik, haplography, English, англистика, Holodomor, anglistica, computative, omnisexual, ...
 * Enable Czech-to-German traversal via the English hub or the middleman: anglistika → English studies → Anglistik; ditto for any two non-English languages. This naturally works for kočka → cat → Katze.
 * Answer the following question via a page with a familiar format: what are all single-word translations into various languages of the term "English studies"?

Rationale for the tentativeness used in "following criteria ... are tentative": Translation hubs can be very useful but there is a fear of overflood. The tentative criteria are designed to prevent that overflood. However, we cannot be sure that the criteria succeeded in that objective. Therefore, flexibility is built-in to allow editors to override the criteria as they see fit. Those who dislike translation hubs in general but accept a small set of them can vote in WT:RFD according to their taste. Still, having some tentative criteria to deviate from is so much better than having no criteria at all. One can also think of it as beta-testing the criteria.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Credits
The wording and the rationale were drafted with the help of BD2412. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Translation hub vs. translation target
I chose the term "translation hub" as the main one and "translation target" as secondary. Some people seemed to prefer "translation hub"; the term seems to better point to the middleman part of the rationale, which I like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Question: How should translation hubs looks like?
The formatting of entries in Category:English non-idiomatic translation targets are currently inconsistent (see this for a summarization). We should discuss: --Zcreator alt (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Whether we need a "translation only" template? Should a literal definition be added? (like def 4/5 here)? We might also move the "translation only" template under the second-level language heading (we should redesign the template like ).
 * 2) Should we need a category for translation hubs? (we don't have a categories for entries kept for COALMINE rule) Should this category be hidden? (Category:English phrasebook is not hidden)
 * I would like to leave the formatting out of this vote. That issue can be made separate. The important thing is to include translation hubs so that they can serve the purpose. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Examples of entries passed RFD
One is at Talk:older brother. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * be fond of was redirected.
 * Talk:be silent is a 2017 keeper.
 * Talk:art dealer is a 2013 keeper.
 * Talk:commit suicide is a 2014 keeper.
 * Talk:foreign country is a 2014 keeper.
 * I'd like to emphasize the flexibility built-in. If you (the reader) don't like some of the cases, the vote makes it fine for you to vote delete in a RFD on a case-by-case basis and yet be consistent with CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Talk:emergency physician is a 2014 keeper, via French urgentiste and Portuguese emergencista. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

About the last rule
"The existence of a rare single-word English synonym of the considered English term does not disqualify the considered English term"

I don't know. We've apparently ignored this at (since moved to Talk:bleed to death). But isn't especially rare, nor is it a single-word term, so maybe it's not the best example. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think the rule has been ignored there, or even come into play, because as you say, "bleed out" isn't rare — it's in the rough vicinity of 1/8th as common ([//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%28bleed+out*8%29%2Cbleed+to+death&year_start=1908&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=10&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28bleed%20out%20%2A%208%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cbleed%20to%20death%3B%2Cc0 present tense], [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%28bled+out*8%29%2Cbled+to+death&year_start=1908&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=10&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28bled%20out%20%2A%208%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cbled%20to%20death%3B%2Cc0 past tense]). Being less common is not the same as being rare. [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=man%2C%28woman*3%29&year_start=1908&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cman%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28woman%20%2A%203%29%3B%2Cc0 "Woman" is roughly 1/3 as common as "man"], but it certainly isn't rare or even uncommon. "Anglistics", for comparison, is only [//books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%28Anglistics*100%29%2CEnglish+studies&year_start=1968&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28Anglistics%20%2A%20100%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CEnglish%20studies%3B%2Cc0 about 1/100] as common as "English studies". - -sche (discuss) 16:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with -sche: bleed out is not very rare, compared to Anglistics. It would have been better to keep bleed to death as a translation hub, but the current translation hub proposal does not directly protect bleed to death. The general idea is, use the most en:idiomatic (as opposed to wikt:idiomatic) term as the translation hub. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What translations are included?
Should translations that don't pass CFI on their own be included? Like for ? Gormflaith (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that you can link individual words separately if the translation isn't idiomatic (this doesn't address whether they should be included at all). DTLHS (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)