Talk:Translation teams

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

Nice initiatives! I nod this idea - team would work more effectively designed as an umbrella, as Sabine once suggested.

As for relationship between the planned teams and Transcom, I made some modification. Since Transcom is a part of Communications committee (Comcom) and its membership and organization is under controll of Comcom. "Being subdivision" could be meant team organization also would be required in such a manner, and I am not sure if it is necessary and/or appropriate. Rather I would like each language's TCPLs and supporting translators to build up their team, and if necessary, being advised by other people, other lanuage TCPLs, Transcom members or any other Foundation layer activists :) --Aphaia 08:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The idea is fantastic, although there's a practical limitation that probably applies to the majority of the languages — and that, in fact, likely applies to my own native tongue, pt: the fact that there are not too many users (I mean, more than one or two) visiting Meta and translating regularly. In my language's case: I seem to be the only Portuguese-speaking user who translates regularly on Meta. We have had other people do translations, but they come and go. Other than that, a few, highly-visible events may attract "temporary translators", such as it was with the Board elections earlier this year, when a couple of users from the pt projects dropped by and translated the candidate statements into Portuguese. But those too tend to leave once the event is over or when the material relevant to that particular event has already been fully translated.
For most languages (maybe 95%...), we might just end up with a one-or-two-person(s) team (the coordinator, who set up the team in the first place, and maybe one more user). Of course, we can always go to the relevant projects (in my case, mainly pt.wp) and "advertise", try to generate interest, but there's no guarantee that we'd actually get anyone, or that any of those will be a long-term commitment, the kind that doesn't wear off after a few weeks.
Not that any of this should persuade us to give up this very nice idea, but we need to keep that in mind, I believe, since one or two users can have a harder time keeping up with everything that might need translating, especially when there might be an event or situation that generates a lot of demand for translation (eg, Wikimania, Board election, Jimbo gets abducted by aliens, etc...).
A possible solution, although I'm not sure that it's really that good (it could be instruction creep, for which I apologize in advance :/), would be to discourage the setting up of new teams where the intended coordinator has not secured the participation of at least X users. For instance: set up a "draft", and only make it a "full-fledged" team once X number of users have signed up. There would still be no guarantee that those would turn out to be long-term commitments, but it's something. I just mean, why set up a team and then become a one-person operation? If that's the case, then just follow the translation request pages. After all, the purpose of a team would be to coordinate the activities of at least several (2<x<7) users. Redux 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I agree on that both coordination and team sound rather overwhelming if there is only two peole who are engaging in translation. And as for "come-and-go" temporary translators, they seem to be driven by their interest. However some of them showed interest and said "if they are asked, they are happy to help". Note that they are not so enthusiastic as to find their tasks by themselves. A visible structure and contact person may be a motion which can move the situation. Or not.
I launched a welcoming committee in the early of 2005 on Japanese Wikipedia. At that time there were already welcoming people including me or othe few editors. Not quite few. And no additional people has come then. When we made a team, a page of description what we were doing, and had a team, the number of editors who welcomed newcomers began to increase gradually. Now tens of editors participants this activity. Similarily, in the earlier stage, having a team seems not to be a great change, but it could be a leveredge to move the situation, if fortunate. --Aphaia 11:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This system is created for big languages, not for the small ones. There is no way that anyone in the small languages can guarantee that things will be done. Having a structure that only works for big languges where there are many people involved must IMHO be a mistake - unless one can create versions of it, with varying degree of responsability. // habj 23:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Draft template[edit]

The "draft" template was added with a comment that the community should be invited to develop the page. However, that is not how I read the content of that template. I read "If you complain about something based on reading this, you might regret it because these might well be random numbers. We just put it up here for convenience" as "Don't care about the content on this page just yet, above all don't complain." It does not make me feel invited. On the contrary, it tells me this page is developed by "us" - it does not tell who "us" is, but it is pretty clear I am not a part of it. I suggest the template should either be removed and replaced with something more inviting, or re-worded (see template talk). // habj 11:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Official?[edit]

Hello guys, I just curious why and when we did start to label some teams "unofficial" (I have no idea). Since there is no authority which make a team qualify "official" so in my humble opinion it is less meaningful to have an "unofficial" team.

Well if a fork happened and the both claimed to be official, it would be a concern. Hopefully not. Or someone claimed to be official and demand the other volunteer to do something. It would be a matter. But hopefully not.

Rather we will have no official / unofficial distnction and are better to divide teams "active / inactive" or "being prepared / [active]"? If there is only one person or two people, it would be prudent to claim "being prepared". But it may depends on and I personally would like each team to decide.

Just a thought. --Aphaia 19:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you.. :) For eg: from my experience, when I started gathering volunteers, I had placed the ml team as unofficial since no one else who contributes to ml.wiki was part of the effort. "Not unofficial" neednot mean official - although a comment I had written with a modification may have been mistaken as not adhering to this interpretation. --Jacob 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you as well, Aphaia. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 21:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree removing tags "unoff." and divide teams as "being prepared / [active]". --Kaganer 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
So we seem to agree? I removed "unoff." tags including Russian one ;) They are now listed as "being formed". If you think it is an underestimation, please move it to the above. Thanks! --Aphaia 15:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Russian team is active - so i (and some people still) ;) --Kaganer 09:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I also removing "draft" template. --Kaganer 11:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)