Wikipedia talk:Translation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See :

• Category:Wikipedia:Translation which contains (hopefully) all what is needed to make wikipedia:Translation work.
• Category:Translation sub-pages or Special:Allpages/From/Wikipedia:Translation which gives an overview of all translation sub-pages

See also Wikipedia:Translation/*/Port Wikipedia Translation on another wikipedia if you want to port the translation infrastructure.

[edit] To propose a page to be translated

Where the new Wikipedia:Translation says "To propose a page to be translated, type the name of the article below and follow the instructions" it is totally unclear if one is to enter the foreign-language article name or an English-language name. Presuming the former (as the only thing that really makes sense), mightn't it be simpler to fill in two fields, one for language code and the other for article name? - Jmabel | Talk 23:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, in this case it means the English-language page. The link created is the subpage where you can change the translation status (request, in progress, etc) as well as talk to those working with you on it.

For example,

• fr:Fort Rouillé is the article being worked on, and
• fr:Projet:Traduction/Fort Rouillé is the subpage.

I just changed the instructions to read To propose a page to be translated, type the name of the article below in English and follow the instructions. Thanks for the heads-up. I'm used to the system by now, so it didn't occur to me that it wasn't clear.

Marialadouce | parlami 01:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot that there are now a few articles in the English Wikipedia in the new system. Here is an example that will hopefully be clearer:

• Ash Ketchum, the article being worked on, and
• Wikipedia:Translation/Ash Ketchum, its subpage.

Marialadouce | parlami 01:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I arrived at this page through a direct link, without logging in. Though I'm a registered Wikipedian, in order to log in now, I'd have to leave this page I'm happy to have found at last. I have a translation project, but being fairly new at the technical side of things, I need someone's advice. I'm planning to translate the Donner Party into Hungarian, then transfer it--along with the original in English--from the en.Wiki to the Hungarian version of Wikipedia. In addition--even though the entry has the GNU--I'm not sure if I need permission to translate or not. Please advise. Thanks, 63.215.28.44 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't need any additional permissions to translate for another language Wikipedia. It's all under GFDL. You should indicate that you are taking material from another language Wikipedia, not writing from scratch. Standards vary for how to do that. To be on the safe side, indicate it in an edit summary in the target article & also mention it at the top of the "References" section. If the latter is not the standard for Hungarian, someone will assuredly fix it accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Existing translation requests

If we are going over to a new system, is there a proposal for how we will import existing translation requests into the new system? - Jmabel | Talk 23:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this will be done for the English version; we must see what Jean-Michel has planned. However, in the French Wikipedia, the translations in progress before the new Project Translation was set up were only partially converted to the new system. For example:

• fr:Goths has the old translation template still affixed to the top of the article, but
• fr:Projet:Traduction/*/Tout/février 2006 it is listed using the new template

I like it this way, as those who are unsure about using the new system may ease into it by seeing how the page they're working on looks on the main translation page, but don't necessarily have to plunge into the new system right away. They can take their time finishing their work on the old system while pottering around with the new.

Marialadouce | parlami 01:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jmabel, nice to hear from you. Yes of course, existing translation requests need to be imported into the new system. I just finished to do it for the requests which are less than two months old

You can find a list in Category:Translation sub-pages. They are 66 of them currently.

By the way, I wrote and maintain a TODO list at the top of this page. If you see something missing, please complete it or ask me about it.

Jmfayard 13:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oups, I misunderstood your question. My new answer is here : Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Wikipedia:Translation

Jmfayard 23:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General

Could someone translate this into English, please. (This page has suddenly become puzzling.) —Ian Spackman 23:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep sorry. A new translation infrastructure is being imported and translated from fr:Projet:Traduction. If you find other mistakes in Wikipedia:Translation, please report them here. Jmfayard 23:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of the Week

What exactly is the point of the "translation of the Week" ?

Is it here to give a proof that "voting is evil" ? What does it mean that you "support" this or that article as translation of the week ? Does it mean that you will help to translate it ? If yes, why should you then have to wait, why should you stop if someone else find it not interesting ? Just do it if you want you find it interesting. If not, what does it bring to the people who will do the work ?

Jmfayard 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I assume that your first question is rhetorical, so I will skip it.
• Hopefully, as on all of the dozens of "of the week" collaborations, people who "support" are (at least tentatively) volunteering.
• Anyone can work on anything at any time, and (speaking only for SPATRA, because it is the only one I'm involved in), many drop off of our radar because someone takes them on individually. You shouldn't at all stop just because something is listed.
• Typically, what the project accomplishes is that it lets us take on rather difficult articles that almost no one would be able to take on alone. For example, our current translation (es:Trillo ==> Threshing-board/Translation, which is almost certain to take more than a week) is full of archaic agricultural terminology, allusions to ancient writers who are known by different names in Spanish than they are in English, etc., and has a rather complex citation apparatus. There aren't a lot of people who would take this on alone. Our previous one (Rafael Maroto) was thick with early 19th century military terminology, very formal government pronouncements, and allusions to events that, for an English-speaking audience, needed explanation rather than just translation. Occasionally some one or two people can do something like this on their own (two of us, myself and the original author, pretty much translated Paragraph 175, another toughie, from German). But mostly, if these are left until someone wants to take it on all on their own, they either never get started, or are abandoned halfway. - Jmabel | Talk 07:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Rough proposition : perhaps it should be renamed Collaborative Translation (because that's what it is ; it can last more or less than one week, there can be simulateneus translation of the week) and to avoid the "vote - don't contribute" problem, it could be something more in the spirit of http://www.pledgebank.com/

Jmfayard 10:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why this last should be an issue. Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week seems to be working well, and has been working well for several years. Why mess with it? - Jmabel | Talk 17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, let's not change anything for now. Jmfayard 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell whether your last reply should be read as "OK, let's leave SPATRA alone" or as sarcasm about WP:TIE. I thing redoing WP:TIE to achieve much more granularity and to allow pieces to be transcluded in various ways is a great idea; I think you are going a good direction on this. But WP:SPATRA is an entirely different matter. It isn't facing a comparable problem of scale. - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, no there was no sarcasm in my answer. Please keep in mind that I'm not fluent in english (which is my 3rd or 4th language) and that this makes my written answers looking less sharp and more harsh that whas I had in mind when I wrote them. Jmfayard 08:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Jmabel and others, I have a few questions

Which template do you use to indicate that an article is heavily based on a translation from another wikipedia ?

I discovered {{FRref}} and {{SPATRAref}}. Is there nothing for the other languages ? Why not a single template ?

This article draws heavily on the [[{{{1}}}]] article in the French-language Wikipedia, which was accessed in the version of {{{2}}}.

Doesn't you have an additional template to be put in the talk page which says that the original article was under the GFDL licence ... in the v ersion ... see the authors in the page history ...

We have fr:Template:Traduit de for this

• We do not have one single template for this, just recommended text. A template might well be in order; at the time I was putting together this process (about 2-1/2 years ago), templates with parameters were still rather discouraged. I don't know much about {{FRref}}; {{SPATRAref}} came about from one particular project, the "Spanish translation of the week". - Jmabel | Talk 07:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, that will be {{Translation/Ref}}. I updated the instructions displayed in a translation sub-page. Jmfayard 10:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

2 questions:

1. Is there any reason to have a slash in the name of a template? Normally we try to avoid that.
2. It is possible I misunderstand, because the template uses some moderately advanced features, but it looks to me like if no permalink is provided this will say misleadingly that it was translated from the current version, which will be a lie once the foreign-language page is ever edited. Also discourages using this template for articles already translated, since it will be difficult belatedly to track down the exact version that was used. - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

1. A namespace was very helpful because I used a lof ot internal templates. I don't want to change. But this template is not internal, so you can rename it to what you think most appropriate. Modifiy Template:Translation/Instructions accordingly
2. OK. I changed the template.

Jmfayard 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Existing Translation Requests

{{Translation request}} is now a redirect of {{Translation}}. So no problem for the future translation requests made with the old syntax, but what do we do with the existing translation requests ? This was your question.

The template used in the existing translation requests have been renamed from {{Translation request}} to {{Translation request (old)}}. The same trick of superposition of the old template and the translation sub-page if it exists (as used in {{Translation}}) is used.

For example :

• Talk:Great Barrier Reef (contains {{Translation request (old)}} and has a translation sub-page)
• Talk:Spiral (contains {{Translation request (old)}} and has no translation sub-page yet)

Template

Translation

These changes don't make sense: they change the purpose of an existing template. Also, why would you tag something with information about where to make a translation request? This makes no sense to me at all. - Jmabel | Talk 20:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You were right. I think I solved the problem now. See :

• Sea Scout (old use ; unmodified)
• Ptolemais (new use ; the translation sub-page is not yet created)
• Vélizy-Villacoublay (new use ; the translation sub-page is created)

Jmfayard 10:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, really dislike this last one: it looks absolutely excessive for something at the top of an article page.

Frankly, I think this whole thing should go on talk pages. I objected to this {{translation}} template being on article pages when it was first introduced a year or two ago, but now that you have elaborated it, my objection is only stronger. - Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They are pros and cons. I need to think about it. Jmfayard 17:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I was travelling quite a bit at the weekend, leaving me with no internet connection.

Jean-Michel asked me to translate and explain our points of view on the translation templates, as he feels that his English may be prone to misunderstandings.

He gave a lot of thought to putting said template on the discussion page and even created a modified version of it, as shown below:

• {{WP:TR/Vélizy-Villacoublay}}, the normal template that we are proposing be left on the article pages, as in Vélizy-Villacoublay,
• {{WP:TR/Jouy-en-Josas | Parameter = hide }}, the same template, minimised, as in Jouy-en-Josas,
• and {{WP:TR/Jouy-en-Josas | Parameter = show }}, the same template, not minimised, as in Wikipedia:Translation/_fr/In_Progress/December_2006

He kept in mind that some articles in en: already have lots of templates scattered over the top of the talkpage (example: Talk:Linux), making the addition of the translation template quite messy. This is part of the reason why we oppose putting it on the talkpages. The others are:

• There's much, much less traffic on the discussion pages than on the articles themselves. If we put the template on the discussion pages, we risk losing potential translators - people we can introduce to the project. While exploring fr:, I have often found pages with a translation request banner, and have worked on them or "pushed" them back up the request list to allow someone else with more experience with specialised vocabulary discover it.
• Some may say that putting the template on the article page will distract people or annoy them, but we feel that if it annoys them that much, then they should work on the article to enable its removal.

I, for one, feel that the template should be left on the article page during all the steps of the translation process: request, in progress, proofreading, etc. You may say the template is too big and distracting, but to me that's the whole point of putting it there in the first place; the article needs to be recognised as a work in progress or a request for translation, or no one (except perhaps the most dedicated translators with the request page on their watchlist) will notice otherwise. I know plenty of people who read Wikipedia and have done so for months or years while ignoring all but the "edit this page" tab above; they will certainly never take a look at a discussion page, even if the subject is a passion of theirs.

I hope my explanation has been clear. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask! We're all here to make the project more accessible to everyone, after all. Marialadouce | parlami 14:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Maria for your help.

Just one thing to add : my main proposition was that the template should be put at the top of the article not right after the translation request is made (where it could stay for weeks, which can be annoying) but only when someone begin to translate it. Since then, it should not last very long, and it is very useful to have it there, both for the readers who will know that some work is being done and for the translator and proofreader (it's better to have the information you need to update right where you are working). Jmfayard 17:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That makes more sense. If it is about translation in progress, it is reasonable to have it on the article page. If it is just about a translation request, it is not. - Jmabel | Talk 08:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So is this ready to cut over?

I copied over some caveats that I noticed had been lost in the transition. I'm not going to pass judgment either way on whether this new process is better: it is certainly more scalable. I find it more confusing, myself, but since I devised the old process of course' I didn't find it confusing: it is quite possible that others did.

In any case, are we ready to cut over? If so, then WP:TIE should be made to redirect to Wikipedia:Translation instead of Wikipedia:Translation into English, and we should start depopulating the superseded pages. - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe, yes, I think it is ready to cut over.

The most difficult thing is now to merge the current "Regional Projects" (except the ones which are some kind of translation of the week) with our language specific pages

This requires some diplomatic skills. Do you think you can do it ?

Jmfayard 12:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I think some will take it badly no matter how nice we are. These are, after all, their babies, in a way, especially since a lot of them are a one- or two-man project. We really should go for it once and for all, though. Arria Belli/Marialadouce | parlami 12:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done it except for the german and japanese projects. Jmfayard 11:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Previous Month, Previous Year

The code in the ">> see [Completed Translations/Proofreaders Needed/In Progress/Translation Requests] for the previous month" line, points to December 2007.

Here is the originial code:

{{PREVIOUSMONTHNAME}}_{{CURRENTYEAR}}

Which can be temporarily fixed with :

{{PREVIOUSMONTHNAME}}_{{PREVIOUSYEAR}}

but it would be preferable to have some type of "if then" statement to see if it needs to roll back to the previous year. Something like:

if CURRENTMONTHNAME = "January"
   then DISPLAYYEAR = CURRENTYEAR-1

and then display:

{{PREVIOUSMONTHNAME}}_{{DISPLAYYEAR}}

Does anyone know how to fix that? Can it be done?

Thanks

I found a quite nice solution to this problem :

{{ #time:F Y| -1 months }} = March 2007

Jmfayard 21:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did we fix something that wasn't broken?

The old system was simple and easy to navigate. If the new system has any of the old requests, I'm unable to find them (& I know there was a backlog). Did we fix something that wasn't broken for the people who were actually doing translations? Williamborg (Bill) 02:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Only time will tell, but it works very well since a couple of months on fr:Projet:Traduction. The main page's role (Wikipedia:Translation) is to let us see quickly the latest translation requests and work currently being done. This was quite hard with the new system. To browse all the requests, did you browse Category:Translation sub-pages or Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang and then the relevant language ? Jmfayard 08:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I did. Now that I'm back from Wikibreak, I was going to work a few translations. Only 4 of the roughly dozen Norwegian translation requests I'd been watching are still there; and none of them are particularly interesting. Of course the othrs might cave been completed, but that is a major surge for this cluster, if so. Ah well, if there is anything that you can depend on, it is death, taxes & change in the Wikipedia... :) Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that I'm asking this on the wrong page (mea culpa), but my question is related to the Translation category. The other day I was able to open "Available translators," but that's no longer the case. Where did the page disappear? When I click on the title, it leads me to an incomplete list, indicating that there are 6o-plus names in all, but stops right there. I'm looking for the list of Hungarian translators, particularly one called Alensha. SOS! Thanks, Marta 22:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you not looking for Wikipedia:Translators available ? (Jmfayard 23:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jmfayard! I found it now, but previously it was called Available Translators. Someone must've changed it. Thanks again for your prompt response. Marta 23:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject

The LGBT studies WikiProject has just started a translation section, so if there are any translators here interested in LGBT issues, please sign up with us, or even just give your input. Thanks, Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translating image?! (also question about permanent link)

(I am refering to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation/Image:Chinese_Pythagoras)

How to translate an image? The image already existed. The person simply wants someone to translate the characters inside the image, but not the page that uses this image. The person who requested it was asking for "informative image description pages". How can I do that? Also, should I make a new page because there's no information on Chinese Pythagoras?

How do I obtain "Permanent link to the translated version"? Where do I click?

Quite confused...

OhanaUnited 06:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting ? Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/de

Is there no longer any way to sort requests into topics, or alphabetically, or anything? Saint|swithin 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course.

Now that I did it, it would be great if someone speaking german could compare the new page and the old page, because I did not migrate every translation request, either because it didn't have the english name (Na ja ich hätte das zwar manchmal ahnen könenn, da ich Deutsch spreche, aber manche Artikelnamen sind nicht so einfach zu übersetzen :) or because I thought it was too old or not very interesting.

A list of missing interesting translation requests with their english name would allow me to complete the migration task.

Jmfayard 09:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra links to add

I can't see how to add these links to the box at the top: Wikipedia:German-English translation requests/biographies Wikipedia:German-English translation requests/Translation guide Saint|swithin 16:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Like this Jmfayard 09:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Saint|swithin 10:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/de broken

This page does not display correctly. The reason is too much template transclusion of too long templates - if you look at the HTML code for the page, you'll see that the "pre-expand include size" maximum of 2 megs has been reached, at which point the server stops working on transclusions. As the page doesn't contain very many requests, the translation templates probably need to be shortened (or documentation removed, or whatever) drastically so the page works again as intended. Kusma (討論) 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmh, this is bad.

I see only two solutions.

Either we divide further this page in subsections (that is already done for the biographies) and the main page does not contain all the information but only the english name of the articles.

Or we use Special:ExpandTemplates like I did for this version. But then it's not as easy for the users to add their translation requests and the page is not automatically updated each time a translation is being updated. What do you think ? Jmfayard 09:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The only solution is to fix the transcluded templates to be much shorter. Anything that's commented out could possibly be removed, and things that are noincluded out could be transcluded from extra subpages. (Only the raw wikitext is counted). Expanding the templates does not solve the issue at all, since it completely ruins all benefits of transclusion and basically just results in a messy list (now looking more pretty than the old lists, but harder to edit). If the translation system can't deal with 50 translation requests on one page then it isn't good enough. More subpages just make it even more complicated to request a translation in the correct place. Kusma (討論) 09:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to follow the explanations given on Wikipedia:Template limits about the Pre-expand include size

For Wikipedia:Translation/Darmstadt Artists' Colony, this gives us :

-------- Step 1
{{subst:Wikipedia:Translation/Darmstadt Artists' Colony}} : 1371 bytes - 679 bytes withouth comments
-------- Step 2
{{subst:Translation/Information|...}} :   2470 bytes - 2058 bytes without comments
-------- Step 3
{{subst:Translation/Summary|...}}     :   3295 bytes
5 times {{subst:Translation/Base}} ==>    3425 bytes
-------- Step 4
{{subst:Translation/Progress|XX}}
{{subst:Translation/Base}}
{{subst:Translation/Base}}
{{subst:Translation/Progress|XX}}
{{subst:Translation/Progress|XX}}
{{subst:Translation/Base}}
{{subst:Translation/Base}}
{{subst:fullurl:Wikipedia:Translation/Darmstadt Artists' Colony|action=edit&section=0}}
{{subst:Translation/Base}}
{{subst:Translation/Base}}
                TOTAL : 5694 bytes

On this, {{subst:Translation/Base}} can be easily replaced by Wikipedia:Translation
  6 times {{subst:Translation/Base}} = 4110 bytes

Total without changes :

• 1371+2470+3425+3295+5694 bytes = 16255 bytes.
• 2 000 000 / 16255 = 123 templates maximum (actually a bit less, but this gives an idea)

If we remove the comments

• 16255 bytes - (1371-679) - (2470-2058) = 15151 bytes
• 2 000 000 / 15151 bytes = 132 templates maximum

If we remove the {{Translation/Base}} :

• 16255 - 4110 - 3425 = 8 720
• 2 000 000 /8720 = 230 templates maximum

I will remove the {{Translation/Base}} from the two templates, and we will see if it works as beautiful as in theory ;-)

Jmfayard 11:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Damned, that change and this change which should in theory divide the pre-include size by 50% do not seem to make any differences for me. Does it for you ? It's perhaps a cache problem (I hope so). Or did I misunderstood something ?

Jmfayard 11:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Eurêka !

I did some benchmarks on the sandbox.

This gives :

Benchmarks
2MO represents the expansion of

* 45 templates with the 
the 11 {{Translation/Base}} inside {{Translation/Information}} and {{Translation/Summary}}
and with
{{Translation/Instructions}} outside <noinclude></noinclude> in {{Translation/Information}}

* 65 if
Wikipedia:Translation is used instead of {{Translation/Base}} 

* 67 templates without the comments in [[Wikipedia:Translation/Darmstadt Artists' Colony]]

* 230 if we remove {{Translation/Instructions}} from {{Translation/Information}} and put in [[Wikipedia:Translation/Darmstadt Artists' Colony]] inside <noinclude>..</noinclude>

The solution to our problem was this change. Now, if only a bot could update the existing translation page

Jmfayard 14:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrights

I have heard rumor that there are copyright issues in translating material from one Wikipedia to another without introducing "new creativity". Can someone please elaborate? I tried to read the GDFL thing, but though I know a handful of languages, legalese is not one of them. Thank you. LordAmeth 20:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the original copyright is gfdl, you need to indicate that your new article is a translation and not an original work (since translating something doesn't change its copyright status). Putting something to the effect of "translated from the xx-language wikipedia article xxxx" (eg. "translated from the finnish-language wikipedia article [[:fi:Urho Kekkonen]]") into your edit summary should be enough, since anyone who can look at the history of an article to find contributors should then be able to find the history of the original article. - Bobet 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was a bit nervous there... LordAmeth 20:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew

Could someone please setup the Hebrew translation pages. Nobody can request articles to be translated if there's no page for requests. Yonatanh 23:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You can start the Hebrew subpage yourself here. Just follow the instructions. Arria Belli/Marialadouce | parlami 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rye House Plot - Looking for support

Hi, I've choosen this theme for a writing competition of the german wikipedia. Perhaps somebody is interessing to develop this article? My german account is jlorenz1@web.de. This is my email too. Thanks in advance -- Jlorenz1 02:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (You can also leave a message on my english talk page )

[edit] two, repeated sets of links to language-specific pages

I'm trying to make the page a little easier to read by removing some of the lists of languages. There were three lists; one was the same as the interwiki language lists, so unnecessary, and I've removed it. Now there are two lists on the page itself which are exactly the same (top right box and then below centre). I'd like to remove the ones in the box but don't know how to edit boxes like that. Maybe someone else can clear up? Saint|swithin 07:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proofreading wanted

I have translated a number of articles on (mostly) German Holocaust-deniers over the past few weeks before learning of the Translation project. I would appreciate it if someone would proofread them for accuracy. I don't know if this is the right place to make this request, but to be honest I'm finding the translation project pages quite hard to figure out.

The articles are: Udo Walendy, Gerd Honsik, Carlo Mattogno, Wilhelm Stäglich, Manfred Roeder, Thies Christophersen, Bela Ewald Althans, Günter Deckert.

Also translated: Europa-Center Lfh 23:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lfh, I just glanced quickly over a couple of the translations, they look great! Don't forget to add the source at the end, something like here: [[1]] Saint|swithin 13:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Lfh 12:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation from Latin

I regularly contribute to the article on my home city, Mechelen, (and one or two related articles). A long time ago, even before I took on a Wikipedia user name, I rewrote the whole article but had maintained the main part of the 'History' section in a still very poor state: as a former capital (early 16th century) of the historical Netherlands (roughly Belgium and the present Netherlands), it deserves better but it's quite complicated as the city had almost never been part of its surrounding area. I came along a text in Latin dating from 1490 that might confirm or deny other (less official) sources, but my understanding of Latin is far too limited to figure it out. I would appreciate a translation into English or Dutch (I can translate between those two), e.g. by a hobbyist Latin translator. The text from the city's archives was found here on a site in the Netherlands, or just open this:

If someone is interested in doing this, please put the translation on my talk page. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 14 Mar 2007 19:14 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut

This page really could use a shortcut to it, like most Wiki-space pages already have. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivial translation and proofreading

I would like to suggest that there should be a request process for trivial translation and proofreading, such as:

• Transliteration of a Japanese-character movie title so that it can be looked up in IMDb for more information
• Translation of a German image description in commons so that en.wikipedia users of it can be certain that their caption is accurate.
• Verification that a Turkish sportsperson's name has the proper diacritic characters

And other minor (perhaps 1 average paragraph or less) translation/proofreading need. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unacceptable writing-off of old translation requests

Looking at the discussion surrounding this Byzantine system that has been introduced recently, it seems some limited efforts were made to import translation requests made under the old system. However, if what User:Jmfayard said on User_talk:Punkmorten#Wikipedia:Translation_into_English is correct, any requests from before October 2006 were discarded. Jmfayard said "I thought it was not useful to migrate all the old translation requests, because the information about them had a great chance to be not accurate anymore (either it was already translated, or the english article became better than the original in the meantime)." This is ridiculous and destructive. A large body of requests had built up, many of which were perfectly valid, and these have now been unceremoniously removed, apparently without efforts to check them individually to see if there is any truth in Jmfayard's assertions about their uselessness. Anyone familiar with Wikipedia:Requested articles knows that some requests, for articles on topics that are obscure or require specialist knowledge, but are nevertheless perfectly encyclopedic, have hung around for years. If anything, translation requests can be expected to last longer because only a small number of people will be capable of doing the translation. If you have a look at the history, take this revision for example, you can find numerous examples of translation requests that should have been preserved. The migration to this new system should only have taken place if accompanied by individual checks of every request so that their status could be updated, or they could be removed as complete, if appropriate. This is typical of Wikipedia's "it might get done if someone can be bothered" approach, combined with the seemingly ubiquitous desire to replace old pages with some bureaucratic system involving flashy templates and lots of subpages. Will anyone involved in creating this new system go back and import the old requests after performing individual checks? I doubt it, but I'd love you to surprise me. 84.13.132.115 10:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)