Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-01/Idiom translations on English entry

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-01/Idiom translations on English entry. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-01/Idiom translations on English entry, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-01/Idiom translations on English entry in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-01/Idiom translations on English entry you have here. The definition of the word Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-01/Idiom translations on English entry will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofWiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-01/Idiom translations on English entry, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Idiom translations on English entry

  • Voting on: Idiom translation on English entry. Clarification vote.
  • Vote ends: 7 February 2007 23:59:59 UTC
  • Vote started by: --Connel MacKenzie 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 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.

Support

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.)
  1. Support Connel MacKenzie 01:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    Support —RuakhTALK 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support Pschemp 16:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support Cynewulf 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support Cerealkiller13 20:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support Jeffqyzt 14:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC) (but literal trans. should be added only if it differs)
  6. Support Saltmarsh 07:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC) (but literal trans. should be added only if it differs)
  7. Support (only when the translation does not meet CFI) Lmaltier 21:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Votes here indicate that en.wiktionary should be consistent, forcing all literal translations onto the target foreign language translation entry, only.
  1. 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.
    I had thought that phrasebook entries would get a separate vote, after this. Very understandably, those have different concerns. --Connel MacKenzie 03:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    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.) —RuakhTALK 03:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    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. --EncycloPetey 15:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    OK, thanks for explaining and voting. P.S. We already do sometimes treat idioms differently, e.g. the comments at see you later. --Connel MacKenzie 06:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose DAVilla 02:50, 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.
    • 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 MacKenzie 03:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
      "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. DAVilla 03:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 02:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC) As per the 火山 example given by DAVilla.
  4. Oppose (except when the translation does not meet CFI)Lmaltier 21:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • 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. DAVilla 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Widsith 12:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose —RuakhTALK 07:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Halliburton Shill 02:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC) The intent is to make it simpler/easier, but I think it's going to make pages messier and harder to follow.--Halliburton Shill 02:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. 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)
    Note: I have no problem with you abstaining...just trying to answer your questions. The previous conversations have been spread thinly amongst edit summary comments, Wiktionary talk:Entry layout explained, various user talk pages, ancient requests for cleanup discussions, ancient tea room discussions, ancient criteria for inclusion discussions and ancient beer parlour archives. The recent flashpoint entry was "it's all Greek to me". I apologize if I over-simplified the summary above. --Connel MacKenzie 19:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    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. --Jeffqyzt 20:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, exactly. Sorry if that wasn't clear. --Connel MacKenzie 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    Could you give an example? † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    it's all Greek to me#Translations Did you miss it, just above? --Connel MacKenzie 03:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    Well that is an interesting example. DAVilla 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

  • 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 MacKenzie 14:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    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 Shill 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    It looks like a "no consensus", which has in the past resulted in retention of the status quo. --EncycloPetey 20:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Decision

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia