Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-01/Literal translations in translation tables

Voting on: Editing one item in WT:Translations.

Current text:

Proposed text:

Rationale:

• Some entries already have FL-to-English literal translations of idioms. This is expected to clarify users that the idiom is not translated the same literally as in English. This points out the difference between idioms like "bells bottoms" and "pattes d’éléphant" without requiring the user to check the actual foreign-language entry(ies).

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2016/January#Literal translations from FL to English in the translation table
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Literal translations in translation tables

1. Support --Daniel Carrero (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Support Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Support (and any arguments against apply equally against putting genders in translations, so how come nobody is drafting a vote to get rid of those?). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

   I mentioned that in the BP discussion. But essentially, they just don't take up enough space for me to care. --WikiTiki89 02:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

   (1) This is not a vote to get rid of literal translations in translation tables, they are already deprecated there, this is a vote to allow them. (2) A gender is represented by a single letter. Adding literal translations is more like adding all three forms for three-gender adjectives, eg for "infinite" inserting {{t|cs|nekonečný|m}}, {{t|cs|nekonečná|f}}, {{t|cs|nekonečné|n}}. --Droigheann (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

   Objection: "Do not give translations back into English of idiomatic translations." was not voted, so I'd argue it's not a real rule. Maybe it's a rule at least in the opinion of the editor who added it there: diff 1, diff 2. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

   Not every rule needs to have been voted on. It's been there uncontested since 2007 and has for the most part been followed. --WikiTiki89 03:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

   @Daniel Carrero: Neither was there AFAICT any vote about e.g. WT:About Czech, WT:About French &c. Do you mean I can happily ignore them as just an advice from senior editors telling me "you know, we like it better like this, but never mind that if you don't want to"? Do you mean new editors shouldn't waste their time reading our policies and study instead all the former votes to find out what is and what is not a rule? --Droigheann (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

   Ok, I apologize and take back that unvoted rules are not real rules. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

4. Support I guess, especially when the foreign-language term is a red link, meaning there's no entry for a literal translation to appear in. If it's a blue link, I'd sort of play it by ear, preferring to include shortish literal translations while avoiding longish ones. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Support - -sche (discuss) 05:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
6. Support per Angr. — Eru·tuon 02:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Oppose This creates too much duplication of information and bulks up translation tables too much. A little literal translation should be supplied at the translation's entry. --WikiTiki89 01:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
2. Oppose per Wikitiki89 (provided "literal" rather than "little" translation is meant). --Droigheann (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Translations in translation tables are like soft redirects; they're only meant to get the user to the information they need. —CodeCat 02:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
4. Oppose DCDuring TALK 13:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose I would also oppose showing genders in translations. --Vahag (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
6. I oppose including word-for-word literal translations of FL idioms in translation tables; such word-for-word literal translations belong in the given FL idiom's entry's etymology section. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose per others -Xbony2 (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Wikitiki89 and CodeCat. I also feel that when the FL is a redlink, it is more beneficial to create the page, with Template:rfv or Template:attention if needed. Eishiya (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Abstain In out of the frying pan, into the fire, there is "Czech: z louže pod okap, z deště pod okap, z bláta do louže (out of the puddle/rain under the drainpipe, out of the mud into the puddle)". The part in the brackets is what is at stake in this vote. The part in the brackets clutters the table. OTOH, it does add some value in providing the idioms in various languages in one overview, which would otherwise have to be collected from the entries. I can't figure out what is better. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

   In out of the frying pan, into the fire, the idioms at a glance actually entered there are as follows:

   • out of the puddle/rain under the drainpipe, out of the mud into the puddle
   • out of a ditch, into a pond
   • to go from Charybdis to Scylla
   • from the can into the bucket
   • out of the ashes into the fire
   • out of the thickets and into the thornbushes
   • to fall from the frying pan into the embers
   • out of the ashes into the fire
   • from the lake into the pit
   • out of fire and into flame
   • ran from a wolf, but ran into a bear
   • out of the ashes into the fire
   • escape from a tiger only to meet a crocodile
   • out of the rain into the hail
   • escape from a watermelon rind only to meet a coconut shell

   --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Fails 6-8-1. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)