Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-01/Translations of taxonomic names

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Translations of taxonomic names

[edit]

Voting on: Editing an item in WT:EL#Translations.

Current text:

Translations are to be given for English words only. In entries for foreign words, only the English translation is given, instead of a definition. Any translation between two foreign languages is best handled on the Wiktionaries in those languages.

References

(none)

Proposed text:

Translations should be given in English entries, and also in Translingual entries for taxonomic names. Entries for languages other than English and Translingual should not have Translations sections; usually, the English translation is given, instead of a definition. Any translation between two foreign languages is best handled on the Wiktionaries in those languages.[1]

References
  1. ^ Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-01/Translations of taxonomic names

Rationale and changes:

Schedule:

  • Vote starts: 00:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Vote ends: 23:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support

[edit]
  1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support In reply to DTLHS, "should" is not as strong a word than "must". I see "should" as suggesting that the eventual goal of Wiktionary is to have translation tables for all terms. So long as everyone agrees that it is OK to have entries whose translations sections consist solely of "trans-see" templates, then I have no problems with the proposed text. This, that and the other (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support profesjonalizm • reply 09:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support DCDuring TALK 23:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 11:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. However, I think translingual definitions should have translations only if there isn’t an equivalent definition English. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose: About "usually, the English translation is given, instead of a definition": This seems to refer to the definition line of a foreign-language entry, where it is very often desirable to provide something like a definition, sometimes using {{gloss}}. We want to continue doing so in even more extent than we currently do. Yes, the defect was already there but unvoted; now it would be voted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Abstain I'd like to see the "for foreign words, only the English translation is given" sentence gone because of course not every FL word has an English translation, and I hate to be nitpicking again, but the current proposed wording implies to me that e.g. "common seal" should have a translation table both at common seal and at Phoca vitulina. Droigheann (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As discussed before, if both common seal and Phoca vitulina are 100% identical, (not always the case, apparently) then one of those could use {{trans-see}}. In theory, all taxonomic names and all colloquial names could have translation sections, but some of those could have real translation tables and others could have {{trans-see}}. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear for everyone, "for foreign words, only the English translation is given" is part of the current text. The proposed does remove this part. To be fair, the proposed text replaces it by "usually, the English translation is given, instead of a definition." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain I wasn't misunderstood: I abstain because I don't want to oppose a vote which proposes to change the "for foreign words &c" bit, while at the same time I don't want to support a vote which doesn't state that a taxonomic name should have a translation table under Translingual if and only if it doesn't have an English equivalent. (Incidentally when there is an English equivalent, {{trans-see}} in Translingual can do no harm but is unnecessary because the link should appear as a translation in the sense line.) --Droigheann (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain I don't like the wording: it sounds like this is proposing that all English entries and all Translingual taxonomic names must have translation sections. DTLHS (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reason why we shouldn't have translation sections in all English entries and all Translingual taxonomic names, provided {{trans-see}} is available for repeated instances? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that whether Translingual entries can have translations should be a separate discussion and vote than whether they must have translations. DTLHS (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain I'd like there at the very least to be restrictions on translations entered for taxonomic names, such as: (1) Do not add a term that is identical to the existing Translingual term, so don't add "German: {{t|de|Mammalia}}" to the translation table Mammalia. (2) Do not add a term that is the same as (or simply the plural of) the language's vernacular equivalent of the taxonomic name, so don't add "German: {{t|de|Säugetiere}}" to the translation table at Mammalia, as that is simply the plural of the German word that should be entered in the translation table at mammal. (3) You may add transliterations of the taxonomic name into other scripts (provided these transliterations are actually attestable in the language in question), so it is acceptable to add "Russian: {{t|ru|го́мо са́пиенс}}" to the translation table at Homo sapiens. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Questions: Should we have a German section "Mammalia" with a declension table and separate entries for inflected forms? If yes, then would that justify including "* German: {{t|de|Mammalia}}" as a translation of Translingual "Mammalia"? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't have any (distinct) inflected forms in German. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decision

[edit]

Passes 9–1 (90%) with 3 abstentions. We're largely in agreement here, for once. This, that and the other (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited WT:EL accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-01/Translations_of_taxonomic_names&oldid=37526158"