Discussion: During a recent word of the day dispute, it became clear our current policy is either ambiguous or wrong (in my opinion.) For single word translation entries to/from other languages, the translation (only) is entered, sometimes with a very brief gloss. But for idioms that does not make sense. An English reader comparing the literal translations of an idiom is very likely to find the literal English translations immediately useful only in relation to the original idiom, not in relation to the individual entries of those translations. Instead of forcing English readers to link-chase dozens of entries, we should instead present useful information (the literal translation of foreign language idioms) in the translation section of the English idiom.
Votes here indicate that en.wiktionary should include literal translations for idioms in the "translations" section of the English idiom's entry (in addition to the wikified foreign language idiom.)
Votes here indicate that en.wiktionary should be consistent, forcing all literal translations onto the target foreign language translation entry, only.
OpposeEncycloPetey16:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC) I had to think about this one for a while, and have concluded that it's bad precedent to allow English translations of non-English terms in the translations table. How do we control what is "idiomatic" and what isn't? Is "How old are you?" idiomatic? It may not seem so to an English speaker, but look at how it translates and you'll see that it is idiomatic compared to other languages. What if the foreign translation is idiomatic but the English isn't? I'd rather stick to no English glosses in the translations tables.[reply]
I think it's reasonable to gloss almost any non-direct translation; what's wrong with glossing (for example) "Quel âge avez-vous ?" as "What age do you have?" (BTW, properly speaking, neither "How old are you?" nor "Quel âge avez-vous ?" is an idiom; an idiom is a stock phrase whose true meaning does not immediately follow from its literal meaning. I think the word you're looking for is fixed expression, which is a stock phrase that's not an idiom but that nonetheless cannot vary in form, and whose form must therefore be memorized when learning a language.) —RuakhTALK03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I think those glosses should be limited to the entry for the term being glossed and should not appear in the translation table of the English entry. --EncycloPetey15:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeDAVilla02:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Other translations of idioms are not literal, so why would the English be? Edit: misunderstood. The literal translation belongs in the definition line of the FL term, as with volcano and 火山, thing and 東西, and with rare exception probably every compound Chinese term.[reply]
Where did I suggest removing anything from the FL entry? That was not the intent of my wording above. This vote is supposed to be about having the literal translation also appear for entries tagged with {{idiom}}, particularly when the translation of the idiom does not correspond (at all) to the English phrase. --Connel MacKenzie03:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"At all" is difficult to pin for many cases, and even those that are clear (東西 = east west = thing!?) are numerous. When I said it belongs in the def. line, I meant only the def. line... or perhaps at most in the def. line, if it might also be in the etymology of the FL word. In other words, keep the information where it is most relevant to a page. DAVilla03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of a literal translation that varies from the English but does not meet CFI? I wouldn't think they exist except in the case of sum-of-(probably not more than two)-parts where each could still be linked. DAVilla03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstainhenne 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I do not understand the vote and there is no link to any discussion anywhere. Please be more elaborate. But I abstain anyway, I think. henne19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may be so bold as to paraphrase what I think Connel intended the options to be, a "Support" vote would indicate that English glosses of the literal translations of idiomatic phrases at the English idiom's page, in the translation section are "allowed", whereas an "Oppose" vote would indicate that such glosses should not be added at the English idiom's page, but rather only at the foreign language idiom's page. That's what I based my vote upon, anyway. --Jeffqyzt20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, not counting the late vote, it looks like the concept has support. Counting the late vote, it looks bafflingly like there is support for and against this. While it would be overly simplistic to call it a failed vote, I think the comments above show the community is split (pretty evenly, at that) on the topic. So I'm not sure what the conclusion should be. Continue with the status-quo of allowing the experimental entries to flourish, to see if they go anywhere? Start another (better worded) vote? Extend the current vote another month? Ideas, anyone? --Connel MacKenzie14:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with the status quo while letting more experimental entries. That way, if it does turn entries horribly Greek (or Chinese or Czech or Hebrew), it can be quickly undone. If it works out, you'll have more successful samples and support the next vote.--Halliburton Shill15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Connel MacKenzie 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose EncycloPetey 16:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC) I had to think about this one for a while, and have concluded that it's bad precedent to allow English translations of non-English terms in the translations table. How do we control what is "idiomatic" and what isn't? Is "How old are you?" idiomatic? It may not seem so to an English speaker, but look at how it translates and you'll see that it is idiomatic compared to other languages. What if the foreign translation is idiomatic but the English isn't? I'd rather stick to no English glosses in the translations tables.
Abstain henne 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I do not understand the vote and there is no link to any discussion anywhere. Please be more elaborate. But I abstain anyway, I think. henne 19:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
