Talk:Translation of the week/Translation candidates/Archive 1

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

Compute method[edit]

What Compute method of vote? Support - Oppose = Valid vote? --Shizhao 16:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


  • Should the one who submits an article as a candidate be able to vote for it?
  • Should there be a notice is the article is created by the user — maybe not a rule, but a good manner? Ie. "Note: Self nomination".

These are rather minor things, but a rule of thumb would be useful. --Kooo 09:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The idea of self-nomination works for images, less so for articles. I'm leaning toward not considering it. On counting votes: the total number of votes cast per candidate might be considered, for example, to break ties. A-giâu 21:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should the suggestor for a candidate be counted as a support vote? --PuzzletChung 16:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I notice one reason that has been given against some candidates is "too big". I gather this refers to the length of the article more than the importance or difficulty of the topic (though these are often related). But I also notice the project does not currently require full translation of an article: "the first paragraph of an important article is chosen to be translated" (emphasis added). A-giâu 19:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's why I put on Kanji. Its first paragraph is not so big.

Removal of some candidates[edit]

I think it is better for us to remove some candidates with many opposition like Cosmos. How about introducing new rules like

  • If a candidate has more opposing votes than supporting ones after a week, it will be removed from the list.
  • If a candidate has no vote after a week, it will be removed from the list.

--Aphaia 21:25, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think these would be good rules, but a week can be too short. How about a fortnight? (two weeks). If an absolute limit cannot be introduced, the rules could be something like "You may remove a candidate if an opposing consensus has been reached." --Kooo 09:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Both your idea sound good. If a candidate gets opposing consensus after two weeks, it may be removed from the list and so on ... --Aphaia 21:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two third major rule..[edit]

It is too strict in the early stage. First negative vote can move a candidate to other section. (1-1, hence 50%). How about to keep a candidate until it receives three negative votes? -- ChongDae 11:49, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a modification[edit]

  • If a candidate has an equal number of opposing votes and supporting votes after 3 months, you may remove it from the list.
I suggest that reduce to 1 month, because actually the project have much candidates, and maybe need some movement.--Taichi - (あ!) 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. Articles with few votes rarely moves up from the bottom list. One month is enough for everyone to react./Johan Jönsson 18:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

nominating a candidate[edit]

Just curious, how do I nominate a candidate for translation of the week? JB82 ({ ! }) 02:07, 31 January 2006 UTC

I have the same doubt. I want to nomitae Joseba Sarrionaindia (eu),(es) for translation of the week. It's a basque writer, who made a prison break. There's also a link with a translation to one of his poems to many languages. --Theklan 00:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Theklan, nominating a candidate is easy. As I see, you made it. :-) --Marbot 18:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Greeklish & Arabic Chat Alphabet[edit]

I nominate en:Greeklish and en:Arabic Chat Alphabet -- 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Week 39/2006 - Current nomination as TOTW[edit]

Hello, I cannot help it, but I think that this weeks TOTW article (en:Blood In The Water match) was not long enough on the candidate list. I have at least 20 friends throughout wikipedia who will vote any given article to be the TOTW article within a few days. Thus the community here would not have the chance to have at least a look at the proposed article. I think that this is not good. Therefore I propose to expand the current rules of the game by the following centence:

  • A candidate must be a minimum of two weeks on the list.

What do you think? Best regards --Marbot 16:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I think that is neccesary reform the votation because sometimes is bad these opportunities.--Taichi - (あ!) 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Same for Siege of belgrade, two weeks rule will be good but not a solution. This game is still unfair for fair players:)--Ugur Basak 13:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This is true. Since week 39 was the second incident I felt to start a discussion about it. However, an extended minimum voting period per article (one month!?!) will give all community members the opportunity to comment on such proceedings. --Marbot 22:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I thinking some ideas that will help future votations.

  1. No IP votes or proposals. (neccesarty)
  2. Only votes for users that participate in Meta or in a Wikimedia project. (neccesary)
  3. The candidate must be at least 2 or 3 weeks in the TotW candidates page.
  4. If the candidate has equal support and oppose votes, will be removed in one month. (neccesary)
  5. If the candidate has more of 1/3 oppose votes, will be removed in two months. (optional)
  6. The oppose votes must explain the objection, if don't have a objection, will be anullated the vote. (optional)

Maybe with this will help and musn't repeat these cases.--Taichi - (あ!) 22:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

ad 1. ok, but proposals should be possible for IPs on the talk page. Such proposals then to be verified within two weeks and moved to the candidate page if positive.
ad 2. ok, voters should include a link to their wikimedia project user page in case they are not active on META (100 edits within a year)
ad 3. ok, minimum voting period must be one month (neccesity)
ad 4. ok
ad 5. ok
ad 6. not ok, This will lead to discussions I would not like to see on this nomination/canditacy page.
--Marbot 22:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Marbot's #1 opinion is good, and #6 can lead to discussions, may be this type of discussions can be made on comments part. About 2nd rule, it's really difficult to manage. Checking their local projects, asking them for in which project they are active etc. May be this can be limited with activeness on meta (100edits/year). But i've one more proposal, this sounds a bit cruel; a management group can be assigned with voting (like arbitration thing) and this group can decide to remove proposals like Week 39. --Ugur Basak 11:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I wish help in manage the page, and improve any change that if neccesary. --Taichi - (あ!) 05:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I think about this subject. Currently this project really assumes good faith, but it can be very easily abused, like 39th week. I guess the best thing to solve this isues is, first write a warning message below to When proposing a candidate, please part. Like, if you do vote stacking your proposal can be removed from the list. And then select 2-3 users for management, they can decide to remove proposals which look like vote stacking. May be first they are warned in comment part ( I don't know). But the most important thing is doing these politely not like biting. Maybe we can summarize like in en:Wikipedia:Survey notification Fundamental to Wikipedia is the concept of consensus.
Unless anyone can misuse this project. Anyone can call at least 10-15 users from any project and make their proposals translation of the week.
If more users can join this discussion, we can find the best solution. --Ugur Basak 01:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The idea of having 2-3 users, I personally would prefer 4-5, to manage the page is good and receives my support. How about abandoning rule #2 and modifying rule #1 -> "Proposals should only be made on the talk page. They are then to verified within two weeks by the project managers and moved to the candidate page if positive." + new rule #7 "The voting period for articels which experience suspicious voting behaviour may be prolonged to 3 months by the project managers." Best regards --Marbot 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
As a first step towards the new rules, can we make a heading last in the article for Newly nominated articles, that is articles according to rule #3? /Johan Jönsson 16:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I would rather wait until we have accepted the new rules. --Marbot 18:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

More participation needed![edit]

Hello, I think it is about time to encourage users to propose more translation candidates. Furthermore I would like to see more people voting on the candidates. I will be happy to see the project TOTW regain more momentum. Thank you --Marbot 19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Voting should be easier (no need to reorder) to encourage more people.--Ssola 21:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding a candidate[edit]

Where do I propose a new candidate?
This page is too confusing. Should I put my proposal below or above the rest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:46, 25. Jan. 2009

Hi IP, we are dealing with grown structures on this page. ;-) Usually new proposals are introduced at the end of the ”Two-thirds majority in favour“-section. Best regards --Marbot 18:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to propose Flag of Maastricht, so should I just add it to the list? I'm just asking, before I add it and screw up something unintendedly. LightPhoenix 13:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In section When proposing a candidate.. we can insert a model for a new proposal:

=== [[:xx:ARTICLE_NAME]] === 
'''{{TOWCandidates|Support =1|Oppose = 0}}''' 





can be a good idea? β16 - (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Automation of Calculation[edit]

Hi. I prepared Template:TOWCandidates for automatic support calculation, how about we use it? --Ciphers 12:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea! fr33kman t - c 22:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Support--Flamelai 07:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Support--β16 - (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. I have replaced all votes with the new template. Thanks for supporting. --Ciphers 04:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Old proposals[edit]

Hi. Currently there are 124 proposals for TOTW. 20 of these were inserted more than one year ago. In one year an article can change dramatically. The users who voted a year ago, voted for a version very differt from the actual article. We can add a new rule:

  • I a candidate was proposed more then one year ago, you may remove it from the list.

--β16 - (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • removal conditions used now are as follows:
  1. If a candidate has more opposing votes than supporting ones after two weeks, you may remove it from the list.
  2. If a candidate has no vote other than the nominator after two weeks, you may remove them from the list.
  3. If a candidate has an equal number of opposing votes and supporting votes after 3 months, you may remove it from the list.

would you please mention any proposal that can not be removed by the above three conditions? --Ciphers 04:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I regard the proposed old proposal rule to be unnecessary. Just strictly enforce the existing rules can address these issues.--RekishiEJ 08:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I like proposal of Taichi:

  1. No IP votes or proposals.
  2. If the candidate has equal support and oppose votes, will be removed in one month.
  3. If the candidate has more of 1/3 oppose votes, will be removed in two months.

--Shizhao 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Have add rule 2 & 3 --Shizhao 15:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I will try this in next week--Shizhao 15:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Food waste[edit]

Hi! I have no idea how new proposals should be made, but I want to nominate en:food waste (sv:matavfall, ja:食品廃材) to be the translation of the week. Can someone do it for me? Tanzania 18:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (I tried. If I did it wrong, feel free to edit..) Tanzania 15:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop new candidates[edit]

There are many old candidates should be selected.--Flamelai 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I think stop new candidates three months.--Flamelai 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are many English Wikipedia articles which meet TOTW candidates criteria, so I will still add new items to the TOTW candidate list. By the way, we should try to recruit more Wikipedians to participate in the TOTW votes.--RekishiEJ 07:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose OpposeCan you wait old candidates complete? There are many articles waiting for one year. --Flamelai 15:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a limit on the number of active entries per nominator would be the best? --Boivie 12:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

About "two-thirds majority" section[edit]

Some candidates have merely 33.333% support, which seems to fit in the section. However, they are put under "Between 50% and 2/3 support". And candidates which have 50% oppose are put under "50% or more against", which seems to meet the "Between 50% and 2/3 support" definition as well. Tell me, if a candidate has only 1/3 support, which section should it be put under? If a candidate has 50% oppose, then which section shouldit be put under?--RekishiEJ 07:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of them aren't immediately updated. :) That is probably why there is a difference between the two. Ottava Rima

Possible candidate: Ode on a Grecian Urn[edit]

Wikipedia:Ode on a Grecian Urn is a featured article with only a page on the Italian wiki. It is 45k, but the critical response and the last paragraph of the lead could be removed (bumping it down to about 28k). Does anyone think this would be a decent nomination? Ottava Rima 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we remove references section the article is not long, and the lead excellently summarises the rest. However, I truly consider John Keats's 1819 odes more suitable to be TOTW since it is more important and has no other language editions.--RekishiEJ 23:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
That would work too, as it summarizes most of the poems. However, it should probably be improved first so there is a good edition to translate over. I just noticed that some of those FAs had very little in terms of translation. Its a shame. (but many other languages probably wouldn't care about English literature :) ) Ottava Rima 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
John Keats's 1819 odes is C-rated, and in English Wikipedia C-class means general quality. In fact many past TOTWs are start-rated. In my opinion start-rated means low quality, though some start-class articles were once featured on the DYK template.--RekishiEJ 09:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Then I guess it would be good enough. Ottava Rima 15:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

suggest change to Translation of the day[edit]

as title. Since many requests available.--Flamelai 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose Maybe is better select two articles for week. This measure maybe dynamize the project. --Taichi - (あ!) 09:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

good suggestion. How to run it?--Flamelai 09:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that every week we take the two best candidates in vote results for translation, instead one. Simply. --Taichi - (あ!) 21:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Can we start at next week?--Flamelai 07:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose. For me, in this moment, there are too many candidates for TOTW, but choose two articles in a week maybe can be a problem for small wikies, which have few users. β16 - (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Here as example. The winner this week is en:False consensus effect / ja:偽の合意効果 and en:IEC 60906-1/de:IEC 60906-1/it:IEC 60906-1/pt:IEC 60906-1--Flamelai 01:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
One of major reason to change is the article waiting for one or more year to vote.--Flamelai 01:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

new notes[edit]


I have launch the limit of article entry, prevent candidates wait too much long time. One of Chinese Wikipedian add too many candidate, also noted at Chinese. --Flamelai 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Support--Shizhao 07:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


It it possible to make a bot that updates Mall:Veckoöversättning on SVWP and the other Wikipedia language versions automatically once a week if the corresponding template have been updated here at meta? This would be greatly appreciated. Obelix 19:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There's one at simplewiki, I think- but I'm not sure how exactly that works. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 08:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)