Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

Language Detector

Is anyone else getting the same thing for http://languid.cantbedone.org/, "It Works!" and nothing else? If so, are there any other ones we know to be reliable we can use or should we just remove it--Jac16888^Talk 02:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I've ceased using it a while ago. It should be replaced with one that actually works. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Found a working one that seems decent so i went ahead and added it--Jac16888^Talk 12:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Placement of Contents table

Why is the Contents page after Section 1? As well as being nonstandard, this makes it loonger to skip over section 1 to look at the new pages. Admittedly I could set up a link to go straight to section 3, but it seems an odd thing to have to do- the contents should come directly after the lead, surely? Am I missing something here? SimonTrew (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know, and since this page gets an average of 10 to 15 edits per day, it would be next to impossible to determine who did that and for what purpose. Fixing it is quite simple, though. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was accidental. If not, would the person who did this please respond here within the next week? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No response, so I went ahead and fixed this. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Scsbot issues

Due to some corruption (described at User talk:Scsbot#Corruption in WP:RD.2FS) I've left a message on scsbot's talkpage, which I believe will cause it to stop working, presumably until its maintainer (who has been offline for several days) can attend to it. I guess this means it won't add the date header to this page tomorrow, so until it's fixed can I ask someone to take care of the header manually. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Merely leaving a message on the bot's talk page will not cause it to stop working until its maintainer takes action, or until the bot's emergency shutdown button is activated by an admin. Thanks for alerting us. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Language recognition site down?

I removed the site that was linked to for determining the language because it 404'd multiple times. Can another be found? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The one at Google still works. I contacted Xerox to inquire of what happened to the site, and I am awaiting their response. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have received word by email that this update was done by a Xerox representative as a response to my request. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's good. That site is useful. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Translation of images

Is there an equivalent of {{Notenglish}} for pages in the File: namespace? File:Chronologie Mesopotamie 2.png for instance needs translation as it is used in a couple important English articles but the text of the image is in French. How would I go about listing this for translation? -- œ^™ 02:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is an equivalent template. (In fact, I'd be surprised if there was.) As far as listing it for a translation goes, I'd just list it here. A French translation could probably be done pretty quickly, because it's not lengthy prose. The hard part would be taking the translation, and reworking the image to have the English text, but that could be done by either the translator or any party with access to the translated text and a decent image editor. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The file in question is in Commons, not Wikipedia. I'm not sure they have a translation department like ours at Commons, but certainly a translation is desirable. In any case, a translation request should be done at Commons if possible. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Should I just go ahead and place a {{Notenglish}} tag on it anyway? -- œ^™ 13:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would. The issue of the image being on the Commons as well is slightly irrelevant, I think. 1) Just because it is there doesn't mean that it can't be worked on here, and the issue of translation applies more directly to en.wiki than the Commons. It can just be re-uploaded. 2) All I can find on translation works on Commons is this, which wouldn't apply, as the image is not an .svg. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There's an offer of the word translation at WP:PNT, and also I am happy to translate it. I had a look at the image, though, and in my opinion it would be easier just to create a new equivalent image. SimonTrew (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's at Commons, then indeed a new image must be created, otherwise we'd be disrupting the French Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. What I meant more was, because the word lengths etc will likely differ, it may be better to create a significantly different image (with the same information) rather than just spray over the French labels with English ones. SimonTrew (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the text, the lengths of the text after translation won't differ significantly IMO, but then I'm no graphic designer, and minor adjustments to the sizes of boxes and lines will most likely be required for aesthetic reasons. Simon, if you are able to do the graphics, it would probably make more sense for one person to do the whole lot in one fell swoop; my offer nevertheless stands to either translate or help with the translation. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll pull the image down and have a close look at it. One worry I have is if the text is kerned at the edges into the colours, it may be hard to spray over it well. If you want to get on with the word translation, I am more than happy to have an image with an empty load of boxes etc to throw it into. I am not a professional graphic designer but I have been doing 2D and 3D graphics for a number of years so should be able to sort that end of it out, and I'll upload an "empty" version to Commons (probably in black and white cos it's easy to flood fill with any colour after) which can serve as a template for any language. Give me a day or so. I have the same problem with some Hungarian maps I need put into English so this will be useful practice for me. I have not done it for a bit. SimonTrew (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This image is heavliy anti-aliased in the text (and lines) and I do reckon better doing from scratch, I can hardly read some of the text even on high zoom, especially the light grey labels (though most can be guessed). It's a poor quality image, really, to start with. (It also has a scaling on it, which is essentially meaningless on a drawing of this kind, which should be scalable.) SimonTrew (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I translated the main labels and uploaded the image to File:Mesopotamian Chronology 2.png as a derivative work. The side labels will be easy enough (if tiresome to do) but I still wonder if the small gray text is possible to fit in, even if decipherable. You will see I have enlarged the text slightly. I did not check the translations of the names, just went on the obvious translation, in particular probably peuple de mer (New Deal) is not correctly translated, but it is more just as an example to get your opinion. I translated invention de l'écrit a gray label at the bottom left. This is in six point arial and even that will not be legible to many readers. Your call, hope this serves to help you judge. SimonTrew (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I realised I made somewhat of a cockup, for some reason i downloaded the 422px wide "preview" not the 731 full width version, nevertheless my reservations still stand because even on the wider one the side labels are almost illegible on a 1024×768 LCD screen. Sasha I would appreciate your views, I don't mind doing it again on the wider one if you think it worthwhile. I realise, after all, this is just an example, and perhaps not a good one.

By the way it took the time between the previous posts i.e. just under an hour to do this much, with a couple of false starts to work out the best way to do it. So it's quite feasible to do it, if worthwhile. SimonTrew (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Using cleanup-translation template and PNT

(A recent user talk conversation that I think worth copying here. I should appreciate your views.) — SimonTrew (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are listing already-translated articles at WP:PNT. This project is for pages that partially or wholly need translation, usually in the former case there are quotes that need translation, or in the latter that they have been dumped into English wWikipedia from other Wikipedias or from other sources. I don't understand your motive for adding them here.

Can you please enlighten me what you expect to be done with them? I think PNT probably is the wrong place to list them, but I am sure we can guide you to a better place to list them.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Simon - I am just follwing the instructions on the cleanup-translation template. Hope this helps. Zargulon (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply at my talk page. I am not quite sure what you mean by "instructions", but I see that the template says "please see this article's entry on Pages needing translation into English for discussion". My guess is from that you decided to list at PNT, whereas, also guessing, the normal way around would be for it to be listed at PNT then have its translation templates replaced by cleanup-translation once the main translation is done but fixes by a subject expert were thought needed.

I have no problem with your way of doing it, but it did puzzle me. In any case, I had already moved them to the "Pages needing cleanup after translation" section, where probably you would have been better off putting them in the first place. That being said, I can imagine it would be thought unusual suddenly to find a page appearing in that section that had never appeared as needing translation, so I can see your bind.

Might I suggest, perhaps, then, that if other articles of this kind come your way, you list them as you did in the top section of PNT, but make it clearer that they need cleanup (so as to let someone else move them down, rather than simply listing in the section below yourself). I myself, and a few others, tend to let someone else move/delete entries about articles we have translated, to let others give an opinion, rather than just do it ourselves, so perhaps that would be a good compromise in your case too? The instructions are almost inevitably followed, it just then allows for a second opinion. e.g. after writing as you did for your articles, put "Suggest move to cleanup section", that would be all that is needed I suspect.

You did right. Keep up the good work. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Simon - the cleanup-translation template says (e.g. for Mont Gargan)

"If you have just labeled this page as needing such [cleanup-translation] attention, please add {{subst:Duflu | pg= Mont Gargan | Language = Mont Gargan | Comments = }} to the bottom of Pages needing translation into English."

That is the instruction I was following. Hope this helps. Zargulon (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

("Add at the bottom")... ah. I did not see that, as I simply looked at the documents and not at the template itself, which I have now looked at. I suppose it depends on your interpretation of what "at the bottom" means; you took it to mean at the bottom of the "Pages for consideration" section, whereas I would interpret it as at the bottom of the "Pages needing cleanup after translation" section (which is also the bottom of the whole document). I think it's a little fragile anyway to assume that the second is also the last section in the document.

So, since it seems genuinely ambiguous and a little fragile, I would suggest a rewording. It's probably best to take this to the tempalate's talk page, but to get your opinion first, how about just putting explicitly "at the bottom of the Translated pages that could still use some cleanup section of WP:Pages needing translation into English". I would also suggest changing "please add" to "please consider adding", because there may be articles which an editor does not consider useful to list at PNT (e.g. if they are in other projects/categories where a subject expert is more likely to look than PNT). I imagine that cleanup-translation was originally intended specifically for articles originating at PNT (or other translation request pages) but I don't see that that needs must be the case (and if it is, it should say so explicitly at the doc page).

I would also change the title of the section from "Translated pages that could still use some cleanup", which sounds a bit informal to me, to "Pages requiring cleanup after translation". Perhaps you have a better suggestion? We can add a redirect anyway, so if the section name changes we just change the redirect.

What do you think if of that?

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The template already redirects to a section of this page ("Section 3") but it seems to be the wrong section from what you are saying. Probably it was originally the right number of section but then someone put in a section before it. It should direct to section 4 now. Zargulon (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that didn't work so I changed it back to section 3. Zargulon (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Kleina

I brought this article over from the Icelandic Wikipedia and put a translation tag on it, but it was speedy deleted. How can I get it brought over? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:Translation. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sections needing translation

While this article says that the {{notenglish}} template shouldn't be used when only part of an article is not in English, that template did have an option to add a second unnamed argument, which the template would substitute for the word "article" in the displayed message. I've revised the template to look for this argument and, if it's equal to "section", then instead of displaying the threat to delete or move the article after two weeks, instead it now says "If the section is not rewritten in English it may be deleted." So now there seems to be no reason not to use the template for part of an article. If others agree, should the boilerplate text section be updated to reflect this? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(moved from WP:PNT for posterity Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

There's a problem here, with the {{notenglish}} template when the section argument is used. Even though only a section needs to be translated—and regardless of the fact that the English part of the article has been there for nearly three years, while the Japanese text was added two months ago—the template says that the remedy for a failure to translate the text is to delete the article. I think I need to go to the policy page and see about getting that fixed. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's two separate problems. First, the rules for handling a section are the second set of three items underneath #Boilerplate text, above, and they don't include use of the {{notenglish}} template. Second, the {{notenglish}} template shouldn't even have a section option because it's inapplicable to that case, let alone should it threaten to delete the entire article on account of a section. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I resolved the template issue by revising the template so that when the second unnamed argument is "section", it doesn't mention a two-week window, and it doesn't threaten deletion of the article, only of the section. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if it would have been better to use a named argument, but if it ain't broke don't fix it. We could add {{notenglish-section}} I suppose, but is there a need to complicate things for poor editors who have (well at least I do) enough trouble finding the right template? If it works, stick with it. I'll update the doc if you haven't. Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the doc and added testcases. Si Trew (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

{{notenglish-section}} now transcludes {{notenglish}}. Andreas (T) 17:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to use {{Not English}}, since that avoids the redirect. I've added doc and testcases to it, and the two "see also" each other. Si Trew (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please fix it so that {{notenglish-section}} and the testcase pages are not included in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation--Jac16888Talk 04:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind I got it--Jac16888Talk 05:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't spotted it. The testcases presumably were by transclusion, I didn't put them in that cat. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Notifications

Is there a bot that could notify editors based on the language of articles listed here? I regularly translate from a few languages, but sometimes I just miss the updates on this page on my already-too-large watchlist. If we can get a bot to notify based on the language listed on the templates, it might help a little. Not sure if one of the existing bots that do the AfD/Prod notifications could do that. Any opinions? cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK Own up

...who has looked at the Wikimedia Foundation comments on donations and wanted to Wikify or translate them (or, heaven forbid, list them at PNT)?

Best wishes to you all. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

cleanup-translation

I am not sure that {{cleanup-translation}} expresses our sentiment clearly. It does not require someone with dual fluency, and no such thing exists, it requires someone with a knowledge of the subject assuing good translation with little knowledge. I would recommend changing "Somone who approaches dual fluency" to "Someone with an understanding of the subject".

I should appreciate your views. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Someone with an understanding of the subject" doesn't distinguish the needs of the pages listed here from the needs of any other page on Wikipedia that needs good editing. Dual fluency might be overkill, but I'd say a couple of needs might exist:

• Someone who can look back at the original and see what the original translator might have overlooked, or not understood. In my case, for example, my acquaintance with Spanish and French is decades-long, and yet my vocabulary has a lot of holes, especially in terms of figures of speech, and I resort to dictionaries and reference to Google searches to see what context certain turns of phrase are commonly found in. While I can sometimes tell that what someone has written in Spanish is just poorly written, as one often finds in English articles, there are times when I can't even be sure whether it's a question of poor writing or a gap in my knowledge. The result is that I can sometimes do what I think is a really good job through an entire article, but sometimes there's just a sentence here and a phrase there that I really could have been wrong about, and it would be worthwhile for someone to go back and double-check.
• Even without reference to the original, someone who is adequately familiar with both languages, and see certain phrases in the translation the trigger the reaction, "Oh, he made that mistake" and fix it. For instance, when I come across "eventually" in a translation where it doesn't make sense, I know immediately that it's a mistranslation of "éventuellement" or "eventualmente" or "eventueel", which means the English word should be "possibly". —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a very late reply, but I agree with everything you said. Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tip re Arabic script

A couple of my colleagues frequenting this page commonly declare Arabic to be Persian (Farsi) and vice versa. I guess these two, as well as Urdu, are the three most widely used languages that use the Arabic script (though I don't think I've come across any Urdu here). I don't know either language beyond a very few scraps of Arabic, but I've learned to recognize the letters, and one really helpful tip I can give you, which repeats what's said on Wikipedia:Language recognition chart, is to look for heavy use of the Arabic definite article, which is alif-lam, ال, prefixed (i.e., attached to the right side of) to the word it qualifies. If the qualified word starts with alif, the lam is obligatory combined with it into a ligation, giving الا. Examples: اليغاور السنوريّات لاتعتبر البرك الأنها. Also, in Arabic, a lot of words end in ﺓ or ﺔ. On the other hand, the letter ﮒ (Arabic ﻛ with a slanted line over it) is a likely sign of non-Arabic writing. I hope this helps! —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Easier than that, in my opinion: Arabic has vowel marks, lines over letters and under, Urdu has small circles above some letters, Persian looks like Arabic without the dashes. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 06:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories by language

Are these sorted by language anywhere? I can do many of the South Asian ones, but it would be easier if they were sorted by language. I was wondering if they are categorized anywhere in that way, so I can just watch the categories for particular languages. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. There are just too few non english articles at any given time, and they usually only stay a couple of weeks, to make it worth creating categories for every possible language--Jac16888^Talk 05:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that would be the case, but I was hoping it would be easier to watch. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 06:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can translate Islamic dates

I don't know how to translate the Islamic calendar dates. I edited the one article stupidly thinking the date was just wrong, but I realize now that the date is probably correct but its an Islamic calendar date. I can only guess its early 20s, but I don't know how to translate. Anyone else? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation

I've been through this cat several times the last few weeks, removing the cat where the article has already been cleaned up or misplaced, stubbing the crap and cleaning a few, I've managed to get it down from over a hundred article to under 50, and the problem is, most of the ones left are a mess, some are really bad, the question is, how do we get these dealt with? Do we just leave them to be sorted over time (which evidence suggests isn't very likely) or start stubbing and prodding, or do we try and recruit people who can deal with them. So, lets brainstorm "mindmap" here people, any ideas?--Jac16888^Talk 22:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Boilerplate text"

I suggest "Standard text". I know what boilerplate it, in fact i have heated metal type over a boiler, but people coming here who may not have English as tbeir first language, I think an obscure word to say to mean "what you must put here". I suggest "Standard text" but I t hink better would be what I just said "what to put here", or something like that. I quite expect other editors to do better, but it only just occured to me that is quite an obscure phrase really, I understand it but I am English and a typographer and software engineer. I think better reworded, as best everyone here can (better than me, for sure).

Best wishes

S. Si Trew (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

When did this become so complicated?

It used to be pretty straightforward to list a page here, now, all of a sudden, it takes four or five steps, none of them explained as to how to actually list something on this page. Woogee (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

hasn't changed, and its still dead easy, its all explained on the tag. Add {{Notenglish}} to the page then from that copy the {{subst:Needtrans | pg = Pages needing translation into English | Language = unknown | Comments = }} ~~~~ on the template to the bottom of the Pages for consideration section. Wheres the difficulty?--Jac16888^Talk 12:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing at all

The language of this article is.....there isn't one actually. There you have it ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, there are no articles listed in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation, add to that the fact there are just 4 articles left in Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation and I would say its bloody brilliant. Nicely done everyone who helps out here, lets keep it up. Thanks--Jac16888^Talk 18:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Largoplazo likes this.

Kubek15 ^write/sign likes this thinks it's boring here...

Salvio likes this too. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Favonian hates it! It feels so ... empty ;) Favonian (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Too bad :( The only French I've seen on the English Wikipedia lately was on my talk page, and it came from two users, both of whom are now indef-blocked. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Like :) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I am getting fed up with no French or Latin too, and I just learned Hungarian and bugger all of that either. I know that means we are all doing a good job, but I kinda miss it. Si Trew (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pages needing cleanup after translation

I see from an earlier heading here that before I started swinging by here regularly, there were hundreds of articles in Category:Needing cleanup after translation. Bravo to those who helped knock that down to the current 4! However, since the spate of articles actually needing translation seems to have abated and we're all more or less sitting around twiddling our thumbs, I thought I'd mention that the other day instead of just scrolling down past all the semi-impenetrable stuff at the top of the page, I clicked on a "see also" link and found, one step away, Category:Rough translations. I'm not at all sure how these differ from "Needing cleanup after translation" except they are kind of hidden away and the ones I looked at are horrendous. I suggest we combine these 2 listings somehow and get cracking on making these chunks of machine translation readable. Also, is there any way to tag them or list them by original language? This is the kind of little project I can work on at work, if I don't have to spend a long time finding an article whose original is in a language I can read before assessing its level of difficulty and its length, and I suspect others would also be more likely to pitch in on these if they were organized and classified somewhere obvious.Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rough translations has always been the thing I've been leading towards approaching, but never wanting to. I did recently list it at Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask to try ans get more interest in it, but beyond that haven't done much, I don't really want to start listing them here. The problem with a lot is that they're in the state they appeared on the site, so its very difficult to judge the original language other than guessing from the subject of the article. A lot of them seem to be about miliatry topics for some reason. I really think that the first step to sort these out it to ruthlessly prod or stub the ones that are almost entirely unintelligible--Jac16888^Talk 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you let me know what languages you;re strongest with I can probably come up with a list of articles that originated in that language--Jac16888^Talk 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've picked off half a dozen of these since posting this - quite fun actually. I continue to think that if they were sorted by original language, more people would also find it fun, but maybe I'm just cracked. Anyway, I can read a bizarre number of languages: I see that as more applicable to editing here on en.wikipedia than the ability to write or speak them and I was running out of userboxes worth displaying, so I have put up reading knowledge boxes on my userpage on the model of the Babel ones. However, they have now forbidden me to go online from work, so assuming they don't actually fire me, I'll have to slack off somewhat. . . . Got any suggestions for articles that should be top priority? . . . But. I keep coming across sections of articles that should be in the Rough Translations category and aren't. I think it needs to be taken under the wing of this better watched page somehow, so that adding pages to the category doesn't amount to throwing them into a deep pit.Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Priority? All of them. A lot of those articles are in terrible shape. I've finally done it, I expanded the rough translation tag to include the list at pnt instructions same as the other two, and added the first 10 articles from the cat to pnt. Oddly it seems a lot of the articles are military/weapon related. I also posted a note at the soviet union wikiproject asking them to sort themselves out--Jac16888^Talk 01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

w00t! Yes, some of them are abominable. Others are just sad--people have tried. There also seem to be a significant number of places. I haven't got fired yet, so I'll continue picking off German, Norwegian, French, etc. where I can. Let me know if you find any Icelandic, since that is clearly the most exotic thing I can read. I do notice that in some cases the template identifies the language. I wonder if I can use that to search.Yngvadottir (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Very bilingual Spanish-English help requested

I've been translating Bartolomé Ordóñez from Spanish. There is one very difficult passage corresponding to this portion of the English language work (see Spanish-language article for original). I think I'm at least very close, but the descriptions of the tombs were quite confusing, and I might have gotten something wrong. A check by someone else would be very welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Resolved

And another, which may not need as much of an expert: I'm translating es:Pedro Roldán. Eventually, of course, it will go at Pedro Roldán; right now it's at User:Jmabel/temp. There are a couple of phrases that are throwing me, so I'm here seeking help. Please, if you are confident, feel free to edit the article directly even while it is in my user space.

• With reference to his daughter Francisca Roldán: "...se encargaba del encarnado de las imágenes..." I'd guess that this means that she was in charge of the rough shaping of the sculptures, before he would do the details, but I'm not completely confident in that interpretation.
• "De formación naturalista, su imaginería evoluciona hacia un mayor barroquismo, con un estilo personal tan elegante como libre de formas." I'm not sure I understand libre de formas in this context.

- Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Since it has been two weeks and no one has stepped in, I have moved the article to Pedro Roldán; the two phrases mentioned above remain untranslated. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lists of author's/composer's works

I have been unable to locate any Wiki policy regarding the need to translate the original language titles of author's/composer's works. Henri Bertini is a typical example of the case in question - please see talk page and recent history, and if possible point me to a relevant section in MoS. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy, or even a guideline. My own tendency would be to translate the ones that are merely informative (e.g. "Trio pour piano, violon, et basse, no 1" would become "Trio for piano, violin, and bass, no. 1") and to render those that are more like true titles in both languages (e.g. where the article in question has "Again a little trifle", I'd also put the original in parentheses, and would translate that as "Another little trifle," not the over-literal "Again a little trifle"). One of the advantages of the latter approach is that it does let you be more colloquial in the translation without being confusing, because the original is there for anyone who cares. - Jmabel | Talk 17:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel. I think that's basically what I had already done. Seems I was on the right track.--Kudpung (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction sections

How would people feel about moving the standard procedures and boilerplate text sections to a template and transcluding it here? Mainly to make it easier to find the actual articles instead of scrolling through all that--Jac16888^Talk 10:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 07:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah transclusion seems an obvious thing to do, and I agree with the reason you state. For one thing, doing so would reduce the chances of the boilerplate being accidentally mangled. I don't know why you think it would make it smaller to display though (put it in some kind of show/hide box?) Si Trew (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant in the edit box--Jac16888^Talk 14:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've taken WP:BOLD (sort of, since there is a "consensus" of three editors) and moved these sections to WP:Pages needing translation into English/Procedures and WP:Pages needing translation into English/Boilerplate. Si Trew (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Company of Death

The article Company of Death has a tag from this page. However, there is no sign of it in the listing. The issue appears to be that a paragraph has been taken from an Italian translation of a Latin source, so it should have been a section tag. The question is, what to do. The page has just gone through a delete discussion with a keep result. Should the tag be removed or changed to a section tag? Ideally, could an Italian speaker translate the section? Otherwise, the solution seems to be to remove the section entirely (it isn't essential to the article). Monstrelet (talk) 11:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say remove it, a translation would probably lose some of the meaning since its most likely an antiquated form of italian and its doesn't appear to lend much to the article anyway--Jac16888^Talk 16:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Noticed of the Emperor's coming, the Milanese (authorities) commanded to prepare the weapons to resist him. And a company ("societas") is made of nine hundred chosen men, fighting on great horses who swear that no one would have fled from the battlefield for fear of death and they would not allow anyone to betray the Municipality of Milan, and also they swore that they would have taken every day the battlefield to fight against the Emperor. At that point, the Municipality chosed the weapons and the banner, and a ring was given in hand to each one of these men and they were recruited as Knights in the pay of the City, so that if anyone had fled he would have been rightly killed. Head of this company was Alberto da Giussano who got the banner of the City. Then came another company made of chosen soldiers on foot, for the custody of the Carroccio, and all of them swore they would rather die than flee from the battlefield. And three hundred battle wagons ("vessels") are manifactured and for each one there were six horses covered (by armour), dragging the vehicle. In every wagon there were ten men moving sickles to cut grass meadows, to cut hostiles as sailors move the oars: it was a terrible equipment against the enemies. (Galvano Fiamma, Chronica Galvanica cap. 291 f. 81v). Cunibertus (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Since we have a number of people lately requesting sources translated, and the current tag adds them to Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation, I've been bold and made Category:Sources needing translation and changed the tag--Jac16888^Talk 21:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Tag for 'Translated pages that could still use some cleanup'

The instructions for this template say to simply insert {{cleanup-translation}} onto the page, but I later discovered that you actually need to put {{cleanup-translation|langauge}} replacing "langauge" with the actual name of the language. Does anyone know how to update the template instructions? And can they? Thanks JenLouise (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Duflu

Note, your template, {{Duflu}}, has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)