Meta talk:Babylon

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Discussion pages Babylon talk page Archives
Welcome to the Babylon talk page! This place is dedicated to discussions about all the translations-related issues here on Meta-Wiki.
  • Meta is a multilingual project; so is this page. Any language is welcome here.
  • You can reply to a topic by clicking the [edit] link beside that section's header, or start a new discussion


EuAlexandre Ice queria pedir aulas sobre como criar e editar um documento na wikipédia para eu poder partilhar algum conhecimento.

Should FuzzyBot remove all potentially outdated translations?[edit]

As you know, FuzzyBot updates translation pages when the source page is changed (usually the source is English). Recently, when a paragraph is changed in the source page, all translations are removed completely (example). Translators can then manually restore them by clicking the blue button on Special:Translate (with or without changes to the text).

I propose instead to keep the translation, and mark it as outdated until the translator clicks the blue button, like this:

Translate manual - Translate example - 09. Outdated.png

Nemo 11:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support Support as proposer. FuzzyBot should not remove all potentially outdated translations. Nemo 11:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Zygimantus (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --KartikMistry (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Removing all is imho plain vandalism. If nothing much is changed at all, even the changed paragraph could stay.
  • Support Support --Elisardojm (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Oh, absolutely. I have had to update existing source version of translatable messages many times over the past few years, and quite often these are very minor changes. Deleting existing translations rather than marking them as outdated seems a huge overkill to me, and I fully support the solution proposed by @Nemo bis. odder (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Satdeep Gill (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support as 'odder' said --Murma174 (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support, of course checking "Do not invalidate translations" will not override translations, but it also doesn't mark them as outdated on the actual page, only on the translate extension it shows they are outdated. --Stryn (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support I recently had a problem with a page which was repeatedly updated with really meaningless edits, subsequently the translated text was continuously disappearing and we urgently had to have it online; a sure fire way to upset a translator... thx Nemo --g (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Sfic (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Off course, fully agree with Nemo's proposal.--Syum90 (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support I support the motion. So often the changes are not very major, so having the previous translation not only saves time, but ensures consistency. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support both per hands and legs Face-smile.svg --Γλαύκος (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support.--Fringio – α†Ω 12:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support This business of removing translations without warning is playing havoc with messages. In many cases the change in English does not necessitate a change in translation. --Redaktor (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Definately no removal. I prefer the link goes to TWN where the changes can be reviewed. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support, I see no reason not to do this.--Telaneo (User talk page) 12:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --TBhagat (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely, removing this feature has been a mistake. --Vogone (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • So, this is a proposal to revert to what was long ago, right? As far as I remember, it was decided to remove fuzzy translations as they are not up-to-date and can be even more confusing than untranslated text (especially when it comes to ongoing events). I would be thankful if someone helps with finding that old discussions. What has changed since then and why was removing this feature a mistake? -- Ата (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support And it could send a message to last author, in order that he does the changes. --Pols12 (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support -- AYST201 (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support of course. ~ Nahid Talk 13:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support -Lsanabria (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support -Linedwell (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Sometimes, a new version differences from the old only a bit. And, anyway, most human beings in the world do not understand the English language or understand it only a bit. So, it would be good to provide an easy way to see both an old translation and a new English text (for example, as it is in eo:Ŝablono:Originala citaĵo). Gamliel Fishkin 13:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support - --Glo (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support - BRP ever 14:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --minhhuy (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support (without hesitation) --广州阿沾 (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Liridon (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Basak (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • What a good idea. --MF-W 14:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support. --HakanIST (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Matiia (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Uğurkenttalk 15:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Openbk (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Fully concur with nominator. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 15:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I Support Support this idea. WikiPhoenix (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support — Ltrlg (talk) – 16:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Luke081515 16:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support At times it was annoying, due to a very minor change, to remove all translated material. If it's a vital change (e.g. something legal, a policy change etc) I would get it. —Ah3kal (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I would second Ата. There are multiple reasons why such translations are marked as FUZZY. In general I would prefer improving FuzzyBot instead of removing outdated translations. In particular for things like making replacing bold font with italic, splitting one paragraph into two FuzzyBot should try to apply this change before marking the translation as outdated. For instance, in Grants:IdeaLab/Towards a New Wikimania/Outcomes rearranging paragraphs made almost half of all messages outdated, which is a significant demotivation for further translation. At the same time, keeping old messages with new lineup would have been even more confusing and potentially unreadable (e.g. putting several paragraphs into a header), which is likely even worse — NickK (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
    When a translation admin marks a changed page for translation he has the option to not mark a unit as outdated if the change there was unimportant (stuff changed concerns just souce language grammar/punctuation, unimportant wikimarkup chane, etc.). If some TAs do not use it — it's solely human factor. Same goes for TAs splitting units and so on — we have respinsibility to apply those changes to translations even if it takes us several hours of dull monotonous work (mixed with pain trying to fix something in rtl labguages to boot :)). So the features you seem to describe are already having some equivalent, though now it depends on humans thus not always works well. --Base (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
    Well, this means that there is some equivalent but this equivalent is broken. If we already have an option not to mark a unit as outdated perhaps we should just decide how we use it instead of organising this survey? — NickK (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
    The equivalent is too simple. Some changes are not worth re-translation (e.g. adding italics). Some changes are suitable/desirable for re-translations, but the previous text and translations are not wrong. (e.g. revising a sentence so it is more clear -- some of the translations might already be very clear). Other changes alter the meaning, and need re-translation urgently to be correct. One checkbox is not sufficient. And by adding more meaning to that checkbox adds work for the translation admins (TAs) -- the process of reviewing existing translations should be delegated to the readers of each language. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Chelin (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I wonder if, after the change, pages such as Meta:Administrators, where there's a table we update manually, will still be copied on the other translation pages to keep it updated or not. —MarcoAurelio 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
    • The table isn't even in the translatable page, let alone in a translation unit, so it won't be affected by anything the Translate does. Nemo 08:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • NickK is right that sometimes the "severity" of a page change just requires the old translations to be removed. I just remembered there is this option "Do not invalidate translations". Can that not solve this problem? --MF-W 19:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Stryn's comment addressed this point. Nemo 08:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support SupportAntimuonium (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support It makes sense Pamputt (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • As has been stated above: don't we already have a feature for this? "Do not invalidate translations" will make sure that translations are not removed, because keeping the translation was better than getting rid of it. I agree it's incredibly frustrating to do a translation and return two months later only to realize most of it is gone because the source text was changed and updated, in which case I tend to never resume translating that page again but just leave if mainly untranslated, but translation admins need some sort of tool to identify when translations should be removed because they are outright wrong, which, as Ата mentions above, is perhaps worse than untranslated texts. /Julle (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it will be very useful if the change was minor one.--Ccgxk (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support eranroz (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --Kumincir (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Once again: are you all talking about the same thing? (It's just not obvious.)
    Outdated translations in given example were removed from /fi subpage only for readers. This didn't remove old translation from the Translate extension, so translators don't have to type everything again from scratch. Frankly speaking, the very given page could be mostly fixed by TA who marked it second time. I guess we should better find a smooth way to notify translators about such changes, don't you think? --Ата (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support. --C3r4 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it should improve instead of removing it. ferdous TM 12:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems that a lot of TAs are not aware of the existence of "do not mark as outdated" checkbox in the interface of the Special:PageTranslation for a specific page. It's annoying having to update the translations that don't need any update. Now we have only two choices - to mark the translations as outdated (default) or not to mark them as such (TA's decision). I'd suggest to implement a three choices system, which is:
    1. Mark all messages as possibly outdated (default, doesn't remove the translations from the translated page, but notifies the translators that the messages might be outdated);
    2. Do not mark a message as outdated (TA's decision);
    3. Mark the message as outdated (TA's decision, removes the translation from the translated page, needed if the message would definitely need an update).
    • I think this might solve the problem.--Piramidion 21:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Can #1 and #3 mark the paragraph with the color background as shown in the screenshot included above? --Lsanabria (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
#3 wouldn't need that as the message would show in the source language. As for the #1, I think it might be done, but I'm not sure if it's really needed. IMHO, it would somewhat harm the appearance of the pages. On the other hand it could attract some new translators from among the Meta-wiki readers.--Piramidion 21:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Eduardogobi (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support. I would also like to have such option not only here on MetaWiki translations, but in future for Wikipedia itself, for the articles with "translated from" template. --Sthelen.aqua (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Aquatech (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support As long as the obsolete text is marked with class-based markup (aka no inline hardcoded stylesheet) and the default styling is different from the red (or any other) background (background colors are accessibility issue, not even speaking about the possibility that the class-defined style will be overriden by inline style in the page wikitext), suggesting outline: 1px dashed #ff5d00;, which would look like this. Orange color taken from the current color swatch, used for medium severity, outline will most likely not be used in inline stylesheets thus won't get overriden (and even allows marking bordered items), dashed to be not so much obstrusive.
    Danny B. 02:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support GeorgeBarnick (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support Obsuser (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --ThomasPusch (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --아라는 다 알아 (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support --HaythamAbulela 22:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Support A great was to put our bots to work! —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 08:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep the translation, and mark it as outdated. Kubura (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I requested to ask for feedback because there is open patch in gerrit that wants to revert to the previous behavior. I am happy to admin that the last change which changed the behavior to not show outdated translations was likely a bad idea. However, the way this question is presented is not quite what I had in my mind, because it asks about a specific change. What I want to know is what do we actually need. As has been said in the comments above, there are already options to "not invalidate translations" and to "remove the translation id to create a new unit" to force a specific behavior.

So instead of just blindly reverting to the previous behavior, maybe we can do something better? One clear requirement to me is that people want outdated translations to be marked as such (which is currently not possible). There also seems to be need to force old translations to not appear because meaning has changed drastically. Is the method of removing the existing id suitable for that? Is it too complicated? Do admins know about it? Or should it be another checkbox in Special:PageTranslation?

Please let me know. --Nikerabbit (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

If there must be a distinction between the extremes:
  • outdated because of a minor lingual change such splitting a long sentence, and
  • invalid after a drastic change of the meaning,
that can only be made by the modifier. So, add an appropriate checkbox, or similar. Then we can have two styles of display, e.g. pink for outdated, and striken out plus pink for invalid, or not show the invalid and maybe have it replaced by the new original. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  1. Support Support--Juandev (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  2. Support Support --Ochilov (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  3. Support Support --Ibrahim khashrowdi (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  4. Support Support FuzzyBot should be able to correct the outdated translation or there should be a mechanism which notifiy the related language human translator/User for that outdated translation to be corrected..--Jogi don (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  5. Support Support--Calak (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I will not continue translating under this circumstances. Part of my latest translation was reverted because of some negligible changes. The international readers are now presented with a mix of local and English text sections. I came accidently about it and was not notified. And we are not talking about any text but the main project right now on the banners. This discussion is going on for several weeks now and there was overwhelming support for a change. Instead of resolving the problem or just stopping this nonsense until a solution is found Nikerabbit saw fit to lower the priority in the phabricator. Maybe you all do not mind so much because your English is good enough. Discussions in my local WP show that many people do not really understand what the Moon project is about. We need the translations now! Even if they are not 100 % correct. Most changes will not matter much anyway. There was no need whatsoever for this bot action. Killing all translations and the work of a dozen translators because somebody made some spelling corrections and added a Wikipedia link in /en is ridiculous. I intended to translate the main part of the Moon project right now but i will make no further contributions until this is resolved. If marking the text can not be implemented easily it would be a good first step to have a checkbox for "essential" changes in /en. This could trigger the bot. But stop the bot from "vandalizing" the Translations without good reasons. -- HvW (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi HvW. I can see very clearly that you are frustrated by this issue and I am sorry for that. As explained above, the translation admins have the control whether to invalidate translations or not. Perhaps they made a bad choice in this case?
Priority setting is a difficult process. I have elaborated my choices more in Phabricator and in no way does it mean that it should take a longer time to fix this issue. It is just the fact that if too much is high, nothing is higher than something else. So the priorities are always relative to something else and this is not easy to express in Phabricator.
Even if you are frustrated, please be mindful what you say. I find your tone (nonsense) and accusations (you all do not mind because your English is good) unacceptable. I don't think you could be much further from the truth, I have been working on translation tools about ten years because I do care. I am sure your intention was not to discourage the people who can work on this issue.
I am happy that after a long period some of the Language team work time this quarter is allocated towards Translate. But most of the work in Translate still falls on to my unplanned time and other volunteers (which we don't have many, help always welcome!), and that means things will take some time to get fixed.
--Nikerabbit (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I got here by reading a query at my talk page here at Meta.

I didn't get the concern from HvW. Of removing a translation entirely (the way it is now at the time of beginning this request) and of marking it as outdated (the proposed change), I would think the latter helps to have more non-English stuff in the articles?

I think it makes sense to mark translations as out-dated instead of removing them, i.e. I would support the change.

--Gryllida 00:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Translation Notification Bot[edit]

As the talk page of that bot redirects here, let me ask my question here. At the Afrikaans language wikipedia this bot regularly leaves messages on the talk page of two 'users' that we never see there. One is a Finnish user Kartasto See the other a Spanish language one Toxwiki86. Is there any purpose to this at all? Jcwf (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Ask them? Maybe they love your wiki so much that they feel receiving the messages there makes them more likely to translate. :) Nemo 06:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I did ask them. If I dont get an answer I'll block the bot. Jcwf (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I see you just wrote, I suggest to wait a couple weeks before drawing conclusions. Nemo 16:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
As it is there userpages why should you care? If I will start e.g. updating my userpage on afwiki regularly without participating there will I get blocked? What for? /me tries to understand. --Base (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I really don't see the point to block a bot for delivering once a week or so, a message to two incative users. You will block any potential afwiki user that may in the future be interested to subscribe. Even if the users never reply and those messages are a mistake, there isn't any reasonable harm, in my opinion, to the afwiki community. —Ah3kal (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This bot sent me imcomprehensive message, too.[1]--Takahiro4 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The bot just delivers messages to users that have opted-in for such notifications... —MarcoAurelio 07:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Bot blocked on Wikispecies[edit]

Please see species:Wikispecies:Village Pump#Translation undone, where I have blocked Fuzzbot for failure to comply with the local bot policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)