Talk:Translation of the week/Translation candidates

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Old discussions are found in /Archive 1.

Are candidates proposed by anonymous users valid? And votes?[edit]

I feel they shouldn't, but I ask an opinion to all of you. In the eventuality they shouldn't be valid, I suggest to edit the description at the beginning. Torne 15:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't agree with you more. Candidates should be proposed by registered users.--RekishiEJ 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
@RekishiEJ, what about voting? @other people: come on, more opinions, don't be shy :). Torne 15:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, voting should be done by only registered users.--RekishiEJ 19:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
per --Shizhao 02:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
And registered users shouldn't have more than 10 nominated articles in the list at the same time. Boivie 09:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think this restriction is completely unnecessary, since the candidate list only has less than 200 candidates. Besides, there are still many English Wikipedia articles worthy of being TOTWs. By the way, one IP user add a candidate to the list, from the doctrine "candidates proposed by anonymous users invalid", that candidate was invalid and thus should be removed.--RekishiEJ 14:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it is important to let many more users be involved in the nominating process, and let them nominate articles that they think are good candidates, while at the same time reducing the number of entries drastically. There are way too many entries right now. Boivie 16:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
If IP votes are allowed, this would make it easy to vote several times. I could vote when logged in, log out to vote again as IP, go to a different computer to vote a third time with another IP, and so on. Proposing candidates per se is not a problem to me; only, they would start at zero votes instead of one, since the proposer's vote won't count. (Stefan2 17:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC))
I fully agree with Stefan2. Everyone should be able to propose candidates, but not counted as votes (without even giving reasons at all to support or oppose).
In addition, if IP votes aren’t counted and a voter votes with 2 or 3 accounts (not at the same time, but perhaps with some weeks inbetween), then he can alone be the reason that translation candidates will not be taken, also after years of support from others. So, when do accounts count that give no reason for opposing (or supporting) at all? If IP votes don’t count, then there should at least be some kind of eligibility check. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter at all, if IP votes count or not. There are two ways to check consensus: to check eligibility according to some kind of eligibility system or just giving good reasons and not counting at all, but just checking the reasons and see, if there is a consensus or not. But the system here seems to mix both systems. But if it doesn’t matter, if people vote with more than one account, then IP votes can also be counted. Then it should be looked after the reasons instead of just the count of votes. --Geitost diskusjon 14:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

w:May Overthrow[edit]

I would like to suggest one article that I think it is really important for world history, but I don't know may I (is it already more than 200 articles) and where I should new candidates (under section with 0 net support?). -- Bojan  Talk  05:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Over entries[edit]

Please save to another place. For example your user sandbox.--Flamelai 07:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Candidates with 1 positive vote in group 3?[edit]

This is nonsense: An article with 1 positive vote without negative votes is in group 5 (and it can stay two weeks without being removed). If it receives a negative vote (that is supposed bad) goes to group 3? and besides, it "is rewarded" : it can stay for one month without being removed?--Macondo (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this can be a problem: I think the best thing to do is to extend the waiting time of group 5 to one month. --Tn4196 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's best that they stay in group 5 (new candidates) while only having one positive vote, regardless of whether they receive a negative vote or more. Although your proposal could also be considered. --Macondo (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

BEIC authors[edit]

(Moved from the main page)
I propose a series of classics of world culture and others, which I nicknamed "BEIC authors" (see for criteria of inclusion). The following authors have an article on one Wikipedia or more and a Wikidata item, but are missing on at least one "big" Wikipedia. Moreover, the BEIC digital library has basic bio info and at least the scan of one work, which can be linked and used as source. So they should be easy and interesting to translate; I hope some are interesting for you too. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your proposal is to change the essence of this project.
"La meta è quella di avere un ampio raggio di articoli presenti in tutte le lingue presenti nel progetto". "The goal is to have a wide range of topics covered in every language that we have". You propose that we focus on biographies of European people. But this project should cover many subjects, and not only focus on biographies.
Your project is interesting but it is very different from this project. --Macondo (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean to propose rule changes at all. I said "classics of world culture", there is no specific focus on Europe. As explained in d:Wikidata:BEIC#BEIC_authors it's a work in progress and (as can be seen on the website for each person) not all of those authors are world classics. Voters can give higher priority to global figures, of course.
I understand we need more than biographies, but there are many other non-biographic proposals so there's no risk. Moreover, the persons were selected for being prominent in their fields: Ancient Greek and Latin, Middle Ages, law, economics, philosophy, literature, history, maths, medicine, sciences, religion and travels. So the biographies in question are usually very suitable for the requirement "3) lead to potential translation of other topics", i.e. the things they studied. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not understand. Why do you say that you do not propose to change the rules? I think so. You change the orientation of the whole project, in major respects, I explain in detail:
1) Your candidates are all biographies. Currently you have proposed 166 biographies (100%) and 0 articles on other topics (0%). I believe that the project should not change its current orientation (un ampio raggio di articoli). Biographies should be a maximum of 10% to maintain diversity in the topics (at most!). Now there are a total 172 biographies and 206 candidates (83%).
Furthermore, in this project we can have a maximum of 200 candidates, for reasons of operability. 10% of biographies would be a maximum of 20 biographies, we need to remove some 152 candidates, if we maintain the diversity of topics.
2) Almost all biographies (99% or more) that you propose are European (I only found an American. No Asian, no African, etc)
3) Also, I think you propose create a specific BEIC section within the project...? --Macondo (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Besides ... you have not stopped to think ... that if you propose 166 candidates, since the maximum number of candidates with whom we work are 200 ... No one can propose candidates? --Macondo (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
1) Is the 10 % rule written somewhere?
2) I've not counted, frankly. Science and humanities are international, does it really matter where a chemist or mathematician was born? I think you're seeing a symptom rather than the underlying problem: there is currently a "bias" in the fields (listed above), because other fields have not been completed yet; and in the short era considered, mostly a couple millennia during which only some areas of the world gave the best of their own history. However, it seems to me that they're important fields of knowledge to cover; they can certainly have a part in this project, according to its stated rules.
3) I added a section just to avoid pasting my comment 150+ times in the "comments" parameter of the template; you moved it here, I assume it's fine.
4) There's plenty of room for new candidates, as far as I can see; if we approach the limit I'll gladly remove some of mine, but I hope we manage to examine them instead. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
1) "The goal is to have a wide range of topics covered in every language that we have". From my point of view, 85% of biographies is incompatible with have a wide range of topics. (I wrote that 10%, but surely I've exceeded and should be less than 3%, exaggerating much.)
2) I do not share your opinion about that "mostly a couple millennia during which only some areas of the world gave the best of their own history". That's your view, surely as you live in the West you think these atrocities. If you were Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Persian or any other country probably think different ... That's the problem.
3) ok.
4) The limit was set long ago, in 200 candidates, and now it is exceeded. It's too much for one review in a week or 15 days many candidates (166 plus other). (well, I think it is an abuse on your part). --Macondo (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Template and positive votes[edit]

The template used for the TOTW is counting only the last positive vote to determine the time since the last vote but it's wrong because the rules write generically only of the last vote; I think that it will have to be corrected in order to reflect correctly the TOTW rules. --Gce (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

too many?[edit]

@Gce: Is there any consensus for "too many" translations? If so, how about to add "# of edition"(less than 5? 10?) at requirements? -- ChongDae (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Less than 11 as the requirement.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I didn't know it; the limit of 7 editions is a personal opinion. --Gce (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

About the candidates I recently restored[edit]

Some of them had gotten removed more than one year before I restored them, so the templates used on these candidates which were transcluded on the page would tell users that they can be removed, but users should wait at least three months to judge whether to remove them or not to give people time to vote.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Last support / last vote[edit]

@Gce: In the Template:TOTW-candidate you must write the date of last support, not the date of last vote. Otherwise, if a candidate gets a new oppose vote every day, it will never be delete. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there decided by consensus? Where? Read what I wrote in this discussion page last year, so far nowhere is decided what you are ordering me to do (removing rules spek about all votes, not only positive votes). --Gce (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Limit to the number of languages[edit]

If one of the current proposal with more than 10 languages is not approved, please let's discuss the possibility of a suggested threshold for candidates, a limit of existing languages if possible not to cross. I know myself that if the languages are "minor" ones the content is in theory not very accessible (but even I can understand some "dialects" of national languages decently) but when this rare occurrence happens that's probably the effort of some "POV-pusher" too.

Personally I have always imagined as a good candidate mainly article around 3-4 main languages at least, so I guess that a limit around 10 for a normal situation includes statistically enough of those. Am I the only one who has this idea? Exceptions will be always possible if motivated, of course.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

New criteria[edit]

Do you think it should be suggested to propose article with at least an image or audio file? Some of these candidates are shown on main pages, and on some versions the presence of a media support is mandatory (or customary) for many of the other articles that appear there, even the new and curious articles. I think we should also try to suggest something of a decent level not only from the source and length point of view but also the overall impact. Images (and other medias) are a very important part of the reader experience. I got this idea looking at a candidate and feeling that I would have preferred to see a picture there, and I am sure I rejected some articles before proposing them here because I couldn't find a decent picture, so this idea is not coming from a sterile, pernickety perspective. I think it is a good suggestion.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think media should be a criteria. Altough very useful and educational, media is always an auxilary complement to the text, which should be our focus. As such, I would like to propose a fifth criteria for candidates: "5) it must be well sourced". Verifiability (en, zh, es) is a core policy across several wikis, and must be considered on new translations. - Épico (talk)/(contribs) 00:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with that as well. Also, together with media file also template should be as a decent level and they are also part of the graphic output. Maybe "sufficient quality of media file and template" as a single line is enough?--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Épico. Verifiability should be adopted as a new criteria. Frisko (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible synergy to improve your enwiki page[edit]

In the end, 80-90% of selected articles here require a good enwiki page. That's why this is an area of wikiplatforms with a limited support from en-N users. So please consider also w:Wikipedia:Articles for improvement on enwiki. You can select a recently updated article from their list, or propose there to update an article that you want to suggest later to ToW.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I come on this suggestion again after it:Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Stella_verde. The enwiki page "green star" had issue before the final selection, me and User:Holapaco77 (who usually have as it-N users higher standard than enwiki, I am not a snob, that's a known fact) reported some issues. Before the final choice our comments were removed by User:Deryni without pinging us, so we couldn't check again and the article was approved.
Itwiki is a very critical environment but it is one of the few wikis who regularly translate these pages and show the proposal for creation or improvement on its main page, we it-N therefore try to avoid to submit "controversial" articles. As a result, the article must be rewritten to pass through the deletion procedures, and some of the comments led now to warning templates on enwiki too, mainly in the interest of other translators.
Based on this experience, I suggest that article change should be always minimal before the proposal and, since the level of enwiki can be very different depending on the article, I suggest again that users submit the page at least to the specific project for article improvement on enwiki (or a more specific wikiproject), so that we have better chance to keep the level high. Not just enwiki of course, a good candidate for me should say something like "I have submitted the page to this project or this expert user for an additional critical review", whatever is the page or the language, it is just that we mainly use enwiki and there are infrastructure there to use, so let's use it.
Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I ping also some of the recently active users here @Phille95, Shizhao, and Frisko: @Uruk, Zquid, and Erebuss:... so can we add few lines in the presentation of the page about quality?

For example suggest to discard pages with too many massive edits in the last days (to be proposed later), or to take a look to links such as recently improved articles, or to good class articles. Just add something to statistically reduce these problems. --Alexmar983 (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Deryni: FYI... // Zquid (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I've pinged him BTW, in the previous paragraph.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I find the suggestions promising. However I also think the voting should be stricter and the rules more pronounced. Votes: The last year pretty much opposing votes say "Low-importance" or no reason at all. To give a positive vote without comment should be OK, but to oppose should call for better arguments. What is of importance or not depends too much on likes and dislikes. It you don't like a subject, then don't vote for it. The runner up en:Pioneer Cabin Tree is a good example. If three voters would oppose, because of "low-importance" the article will not be TOW, although there's a pretty good interest for making it TOW by the active voters. However, if there are good reasons for opposing, according to the rules, the opposing votes get very important. Otherwise, let the likes compete with likes for other articles ... The rules regarding TOW ought to be bettered. What I know of they today are Ideal candidates are 1) short, 2) easy to translate, 3) lead to potential translations of other topics. The goal is to have a wide range of topics covered in every language that we have.
I once proposed an article that was actually very good, but with only two languages, DeWp and SvWp. It got opposing votes for not being available in English. My answer was "so much better, than EnWp have got to get to work for once, too". I drew the conclusion that there was an unspoken rule in addition to the rules mentioned above "4) must be available in EnWp alredady". Deryni (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for pinging, Alexmar983 and Zquid. Deryni (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree with Alexmark983. Deryni, is not a question of number of votes. An article must be choice with much foresight; when approved every local user think i must translate it whether it's a good article or not. Please think Articles for deletion amplified many times. Hi --Windino (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Windino:You misunderstand my point. it's not about number of votes, it's about arbitrariness. The voting must be understandable, not something like "Uninteresting" or "Low-importance". The point is quality and rules that are understandable. Surely you agree to that?! Deryni (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Deryni: I've understood. But in my opinion, as Alexmar983 said, expecially if a page argues for particular themes or by niche (history, science, medicine and so on, let's take green star for example) , the voice should be confirmed (ie. not a RO) by the required competent project, if possible. (All, obvious, in my opinion). It could be a simple one: hey you project, what do you think about this page? :)--Windino (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Windino:As I said earlier, I find the suggestion promising. Better than now, when it's just a matter of votes. Still I think the rules for TOW and the rules for voting must be clarified, and modified. Otherwise it's still a matter of votes, what articles will reach required projects. Note also the proposition to suggest articles missing in EnWp. Deryni (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I proposed an article not on enwiki last year, but in any case it was suggested or implied to translate to enwiki before the actual start of the week, to increase its chance. That is what people would suggest you to do.
I agree that the voting system is not perfect, with small numbers of voters few systems are. There was an improvement in the archive management and dismissal of candidature in the meantime, we need further steps.
Let's start to put more warning for the candidatures. Than we can propose more improvement. I looked around for new volunteers on different wikis months ago but so far no success...--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok we can improve the banner adding few lines, but this require to translate the improved version asap, I see there are Spanish and Catalan translations encoded.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Okawa Shaznay[edit]

I've changed my mind about the Okawa Shaznay article. How do I do? Just change my vote to "oppose" or withdraw the candidate? // Zquid (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Zquid:As I see it there are too many positive votes for a withdrawal. The alternatives you should consider: 1. Cross out your vote and let other voters decide. 2. Change your vote to "oppose". The later choice if you don't want the article as a TOW, the former if you feel neutral. Deryni (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
@Holapaco77: @Shizhao: @Erebuss: @Uruk: // Zquid (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Deryni. Erebuss (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Geographical diversity[edit]

I am reading the 2018 approved proposals and I notice how topics related to South Africa, China, Sweden and maybe Italy (but mostly the first three) seem kinda overrepresented. Is it just me? It's no big deal but we should try to shift the focus of some proposals next year. Just to be clear: it's nobody's fault, it's just something that emerged.

I will look for new users to come here and vote as I did few years ago, we need a little bit more diversity.

In the meantime, my advice for the users is to select more international topics even if related to a specific countries. For example international meetings or conferences, people emigrated to other countries, artworks from an author from a specific country but depicting other areas or hosted in a museum in another country, an international railway line.

In the end, you can still suggest something related to a specific country without being too much geographically focused. This is incindentally even better because we want topics that stimulate creation of new articles and something more geographically dispersed has more chance to contain various red links in more languages.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I have already informed three laguages (eu, el, sl), we'll see.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)