Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki
![]() | For background information about why this project was formed, please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/TRANSWIKI. |
Discussion on disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles[edit]
There is currently a discussion that may interest you. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles proposes that the ʻokina gennerally be prohibited from article titles derived from Chinese whenever it does not adhere to the English Wikipedia policy to use commonly recognizable names. Plese join the discussion. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red May 2024[edit]
![]()
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Missing template for Biography[edit]
At the end of a category (Buildings, Culture, Geography, etc.) there is a template for navigating to '<category> Intertranswiki by language'. The template is formatted as '{{:Intertranswiki/<category>}}', e.g 'Intertranswiki/Buildings' gives:Intertranswiki/Buildings
This template appears to be missing for Biography (i.e, `Intertranswiki/Biography` is not defined: {{Intertranswiki/Biography}}). However the 'Biography' category is defined by default in the header. Tule-hog (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- (i'm savvy enough to express the issue, but not enough to find the remedy! apologies) Tule-hog (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- (as an aside observation, it appears Russian is the only Intertranswiki with the Biography category page created.) Tule-hog (talk) 02:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Copyvio reminder regarding translated articles[edit]
For those editors who are reviewers of articles translated into EN-WP, see this new comment/instruction/friendly reminder at WP:NPP: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Copyvio reminder. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Edit Summary when using the Wikipedia translation tool[edit]
Hi Runab WMF. I do a lot of WP:NPP. In that role, I reviewed 2 articles today written by Commontater. One was a translation from German Wikipedia and the other was a translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. The Edit Summaries didn't comply with Help:Translation, so I brought it to the editor's attention here so they would know for next time. The editor replied that they assumed the appropriate Edit Summary would occur when using the Wikipedia translation tool. That makes sense to me, but I wanted to check in with you as I haven't used the Wikipedia translation tool for years and I don't know what the Edit Summary prompt looks like. Hoping you could give us feedback on this issue. Thanks. -- Rosiestep (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Rosiestep - Thank you for bringing this up. After checking the edit history of the article it looks like the page may not have been created with the Content Translation tool as it is missing the tag that is automatically added to new pages created with it. The edit summary format is also different. For reference, the current format can be seen in this other article that was created recently. The ContentTranslation (or ContentTranslation2) tag is automatically generated and should have been in the edit history. Perhaps we could confirm with @Commontater the process they had followed while translating this page to figure out what might have happened? Curious to learn more about this. Runa Bhattacharjee (WMF) (talk) 11:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply, Runab WMF. I see the translation tags as part of the Edit Summary for this article, Roswitha Hartl; the tags address the use of the tool. But I don't see
Content in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:Roswitha Hartl]]; see its history for attribution.
, which I thought was required for addressing attribution. Help? --Rosiestep (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)- This page about Hama bar Ukva which I translated does seem to have the appropriate edit summary. The article on Ḥiyya bar Ami mentioned by @Rosiestep also seems to have it. So if there is an error it must be in the way I created some pages, rather than the tool. I was not aware of this guideline, so it is very likely I unintentionally translated pages without adding it. I will try to do better in the future. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Commontater (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply, Runab WMF. I see the translation tags as part of the Edit Summary for this article, Roswitha Hartl; the tags address the use of the tool. But I don't see
Women in Red June 2024[edit]
![]()
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
OKA taskforce created[edit]
Hey everyone (in particular @Ipigott, @Rosiestep and @Mathglot),
As discussed above, I have created a taskforce for OKA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA. I have added a short intro, useful links, and some instructions for how IntertransWiki editors can help us review AfC articles. Feel free to adjust anything (description, setup, etc.) and add your name in the active members if you are interested. I don't have much experience with WikiProjects so I would also suggestions in how to improve the setup.
Hopefully we can move any OKA-related discussion in the future to the talk page of the OKA taskforce. Should we also move all the OKA related discussions from this talk page there?
7804j (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, do you think we should create a link to the OKA taskforce from the homepage? I don't see any obvious place where to fit it; perhaps we could put OKA as a "Partner" in the "Members section", and also link the taskforce in the "See also" section 7804j (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, 7804j. In my opinion, yes, it makes sense to:
- move OKA-related discussions from this talkpage to the OKA Task Force talkpage;
- link to the OKA taskforce from the homepage;
- link the taskforce in the "See also" section.
- Thank you, 7804j. In my opinion, yes, it makes sense to:
- Also, in my opinion, at the top of this section, Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies#Open_Knowledge_Association_(OKA), add a link to the OKA Task Force page. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, 7804j. This is a step in the right direction. It seems to me important for OKA to be as open as possible about its background, activities and participants. It might also be helpful to explain what kind of instructions paid editors receive, particularly in regard to how they are advised to select articles for translation. It will be interesting to see how things proceed over the next month or two when it will become easier to see how draft articles are being processed. The advice given by reviewers should prove useful in encouraging improvements to drafts and should help to make translators more aware of Wikipedia's requirements for the acceptance of new articles.--Ipigott (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Instructions that OKA editors receive[edit]
- The instructions that our editors receive are at oka.wiki/overview -- I've added that link in the taskforce overview. We're also open to let ppl from IntertransWiki make changes or improvements to the instructions if anyone is interested. 7804j (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 7804j, perhaps consider putting editing instructions on-wiki on your Task Force's mainpage, or a subpage of it? Sometimes, I'm hesitant to click on off-wiki links and I assume other editors might share that sentiment. But perhaps there's a good reason to not have OKA's editing instructions on-wiki? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The primary reason is that it's a Google Doc, which is easier for us to collaborate internally (adding comments, suggestions, images, etc.). Our instructions doc changes very frequently. Another reason is that the instructions cover multiple Wikipedias, so they are not specific to EN Wikipedia. 7804j (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 7804j: Sorry to be so late in responding. I agree with Rosie that it would be good to include your instructions to OKA translators in wiki format. The instructions in your Google Doc seem to me to contain excellent advice and could no doubt be shared more widely. I think those critical of the project will probably be particularly interested in the section headed "How are articles prioritized for translation?". I would strongly urge you to make this part of your wiki write-up. I can't remember where but I in one of your earlier communications I read that you encouraged translators to deal with topics corresponding to the interests of your financial supporters. I thought this might be the reason there have been so many articles from various translators on topics such as horses, mining and Switzerland. From your current instructions, it appears this is no longer the case but it would be useful to have clarification as it could help to improve the acceptability of the articles translated.--Ipigott (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The main challenge I see in moving the instructions to on-wiki is that our instructions contain a lot of images. These would need to be uploaded one by one (which is much more time-consuming than using Google Docs), but they would then need to be hosted in Wikipedia, which I understand is only possible for copyright-free content. Since a lot of our images contain screenshots of other tools we use (e.g., Google Docs, Clockify), we likely do not meet that criteria.
- Do you have any suggestions on how I could overcome the images limitation to move these inside a Wikiproject page more easily?
- The reason why we have a lot of pages about horses is that one of our translators is passionate about it, so she picks these out of her own interest. For mining, it is primarily because a lot of FR Featured articles are about mining, and we added all of them to our list. For Switzerland, it is because I am close to the topic (being Swiss), thus regularly add pages about Switzerland to the tracker of articles suggestion. We never give any instructions to people on what they should work on, but we do curate a list of "suggested articles to translate" (which translators are free to ignore) and this list is indeed sometimes containing a higher ratio of articles of a given topic (e.g., for translations to ES/PT Wikis, I tend to prioritize articles around STEM topics, in particular computer science, because I feel these are important and underrepresented in these Wikis).
- 7804j (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- 7804j: Sorry to be so late in responding. I agree with Rosie that it would be good to include your instructions to OKA translators in wiki format. The instructions in your Google Doc seem to me to contain excellent advice and could no doubt be shared more widely. I think those critical of the project will probably be particularly interested in the section headed "How are articles prioritized for translation?". I would strongly urge you to make this part of your wiki write-up. I can't remember where but I in one of your earlier communications I read that you encouraged translators to deal with topics corresponding to the interests of your financial supporters. I thought this might be the reason there have been so many articles from various translators on topics such as horses, mining and Switzerland. From your current instructions, it appears this is no longer the case but it would be useful to have clarification as it could help to improve the acceptability of the articles translated.--Ipigott (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The primary reason is that it's a Google Doc, which is easier for us to collaborate internally (adding comments, suggestions, images, etc.). Our instructions doc changes very frequently. Another reason is that the instructions cover multiple Wikipedias, so they are not specific to EN Wikipedia. 7804j (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 7804j, perhaps consider putting editing instructions on-wiki on your Task Force's mainpage, or a subpage of it? Sometimes, I'm hesitant to click on off-wiki links and I assume other editors might share that sentiment. But perhaps there's a good reason to not have OKA's editing instructions on-wiki? --Rosiestep (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
In-line references for every statement[edit]
- So far, the main challenge we've encountered with AfC reviews is that some reviewers are particularly picky with having in-line references for every statement. Sometimes this is an issue from the source article that has it in the general bibliography (thus a fair ask), but sometimes there is already an in-line citation 3 paragraphs later that covers it, but difficult for our translators to then be 100% sure that it indeed covers every sentence without reading through the full source. Unfortunately, this is not always possible as some sources are a page in a book that is not available online, or behind a paywall, or sometimes the source is too technical for our translators to interpret.
- I've encouraged our team to spend more time on sources as ultimately it will improve the quality of the articles in Wikipedia, but if this becomes too strict then it might become no longer worth it from a donor perspective. Though it's a bit early to say as not many of the articles we submitted were reviewed yet
- 7804j (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can cite paywalled sources or offline ones; there's no prohibition against that. For an offline source, it just needs to be reasonably possible to find the material (e.g., "Stuff about Things, John Doe, p. 123-125. Published by Foobar Publishing, 2020."). That would be sufficient for someone to know what work the material is in, where in the work to look for it, and how to find it. That would certainly be enough for me to go down to the library, say "I would like to get this book", and the librarian to be able to help me find it. Also, if you're using references more than once, you can use the "ref name" syntax (I have an example of that at User:Seraphimblade/Refdemo as to how it works for using the same reference multiple times in an article). The reader can't reasonably know that a source three paragraphs down is also supposed to cite something right here, so—cite it both places! Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't notice that last part. Yes, you must read sources and confirm that they actually say what the article will claim they do before you use them. Otherwise that's falsification of sources, and that is absolutely grounds for a block. If you cannot read the source and confirm what it says, you cannot use it (even if the original article did). The Wikipedia Library may be helpful in accessing paywalled sources, as may public libraries, university libraries, and the like. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)