Wikisource talk:Translations

Links between translations hosted at oldwikisource:?

Is there a way to put a sidebar link to/from a translation hosted at oldwikisource:? Simply using [[oldwikisource:XXXXX]] doesn't work :(.--Imz 16:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As of right now, no. There was a discussion a little while back on the multi WS where it was considered, but I don't think anything ever became of that. We could try to resurrect that discussion, and if we get a consensus, we could propose a bug.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 17:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Updated translations

Discussion moved here from Wikisource:Scriptorium.

An anonymous user on Wikisource talk:Help, brought up a question about updating translations of works. Now, Wikisource wants to preserve the integrity of the works (which would include preserving typos and such), but would this policy extend to translations, since they aren't the original to begin with? Personally, I don't have a problem with updating a translation, unless it was of such historic import that we should leave it exactly as it was. But for most run-of-the-mill ones, would it be a better idea to correct a horrible translation, so that people will actually use this site to read works? Of course, any corrections would have to be released under the GFDL or put straight in the public domain, but that's another matter.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer not to add horrible translations, if a translation is to be added it should be a good one. However if a bad translation is added I think as it would be listed as "translation of X by Y" we couldn't really correct it/improve it because then it would be "translation of X by Y & a lot of wikisource editors", it'd no longer be the original translation.

I can see the argument for doing proper corrections/retranslations of poorly translated works but I'm not sure if that would be going beyong what wikisource was intended to do - creating in part a wiki translator (or at least corrector of poor translations). That said I'm not sure how many bad translations we have on wikisource or how much of a problem we're dealing with. I think though I would prefer to leave translations as they are until they can be superceded by better translations. AllanHainey 12:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think offering updated versions of old translations is one of the main ways we could add value to texts. However, a translation should only be listed as an update of an old one if an unchanged parallel in the old version remains on Wikisource. There could be a template with a link to the old translation saying something like:

"The following translation of "text x" is a wiki revision/update of the translation by x."

Allan - while all of us would prefer not to have horrible translations added, remember that that is how Wikipedia works: Often terrible articles are improved by the community into excellent articles. We are, after all, a wiki, so we should be putting the power of the wiki behind the library we build at Wikisource, and creating wiki translations is one important aspect of this. It would probably also be good to have a template saying:

"This is an original wiki translation of "text x", created through community effort."

On the other hand, I completely agree that a wiki translation should not be started in normal cases if it cannot be justified, since a perfectly good free translation of the text is already on wikisource. If someone starts a new translation they should explain why, and if there is no good reason it can be deleted like any other inappropriate text. Dovi 14:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe there should be clear distinction between translations that were previously published (in this case we must be faithful to it, and if possible mention the name of the translator, edition, etc) and translations made on the wiki. we can host both, but we should not mix them. In the case of a translation made on the wiki, I think it is important to mention that the translation was produced by wikisource, rather than by some particular user. I do not like the idea of some user adding "translation by user:myself" to the page, because it sounds like other users are not supposed to improve the translation, for it would contradict this assertion. OTOH, if we mention that the translation is "by wikisource", then people will feel they are allowed to help. ThomasV 15:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Good ideas. Yes, we should keep the original translation, of course. And create a template that indicates that it is a wiki translation of a previously translated text. That way we can preserve the original, but offer an alternative if the original is too hard to read. Of course, I think this would only be beneficial if the original is a difficult read. Otherwise, it seems like it'd just be a phenomenal waste of time.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 15:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It might be a waste of time if a translation already exists. however, some texts are not translated, and the wiki is an interesting tool for that. I spent an incredible amount of hours translating Free Culture] to French. Given the time it takes, I believe translations on the wiki will always remain a minor source of texts for wikisource. ThomasV 16:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree, but if a user wants to spend the time doing it (heaven knows I don't--and I still wouldn't even if I did speak another language fluently), I think they should be allowed to "upgrade" a translation (following what was specified above), unless a better translation can be found to save the time altogether.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 20:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I also believe we should encourge anyone who wants to work on translations while still keeping any existing tranlations intact. Perhaps it could be done as a sub-page. Since we are only open to older translations because of copyright this would be very valuble. A great many of the older English translations tend to be a bit biased in the same way as the 1911 Encyclopedia. I don't think we should worry about the quality. We can always flag such article as "poor quality needing expert help" and advertise amoung qualified people on Wikipedia. The one thing we would have to keep a close eye on is POV issues.--BirgitteSB 21:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've always thought this is one of the places we could really add value. However, I believe we ought to do this in a different namespace to clearly indicate that the translation is not archival of pre-existing material, but original to wikisource. In that case, I wouldn't worry too much about poor translations, any more than I worry about poor wikipedia articles. Eventually, they'll turn out alright. But best to make completely clear that they are works in progress with a namespace.

Some material here is already translated by our users, for example, the farewell speech by Salvador Allende. We couldn't post anything else for fear of copyright. There are probably many such cases. I posted 3 such in Copyvio this week, although one of those has now been cleared. Wolf ^man 20:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Check out Wikisource:Language policy. As there seems to be a very open policy toward tranlations written there. Could we possibly change that page name to Wikisource:Translations as that is all it is about.--BirgitteSB 20:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let's do that, plus let the Main Page link to it. Do others agree that we can replace the current list on Wikisource:Translations with this? They could be simply be added to Wikisource:Multilingual editions. Dovi 21:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm, that's a good idea. What namespace are you proposing, Wolfman? And will all user-contributed translations be in that namespace forever? (Either way, I don't mind; I'm just trying to get a feel for this.) I do, though, think we should indicate which translations are ours and which have been previously published.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm also trying to "get a feel" for where they should go, but I think we all agree they have to be properly indicated. It seems to me a very simple way to do this would be to entitle translations like this:

• For previously published translation: Name of text (name of translator)
• For Wikisource update of old translation: Name of text (Wikisource update of "name of translator" translation
• For original Wikisource translation: Name of text (Wikisource translation)

Plus we would also use templates, as above. Plus revised translations would link to original, as above.Dovi 15:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we do this for all translations? Including classics like The Three Musketeers and The Little Mermaid. That will involve alot of name-changing--BirgitteSB 15:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid hard and fast rules, and to use suggestions only when they are appropriate. In cases like your examples, for instance, perhaps a classic text with an accepted, "standard" translation, should just be known by a plain title (although other translations of the same text would need something in their titles to distinguish them). Certainly, texts that are already here with reasonable titles are not a big priority to change.Dovi 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate

I am a bit bothered on how this might conflict with our policy about WS not hosting original writings by an editor. We are saying here we will accept a competely new piece of translation which has not been published elsewhere. But a piece of unpublished prose by an editor will be banned. At the same time we expect editors to contribute original work by way of commetary to documents. As an example, in my bottom drawer I have an unpublished study of contributors to Abraham Rees's Cyclopaedia (1802-1819) This is based on a list published in Philosophical Magazine in 1820, but to which I have added brief notes from sources like the DNB. Were I to place this on WS, would it banned as not being Peer-Reviewed and published in an academic journal somewhere first? As it stands the document is admirably suited to Wikification with links to WP. I would hate to see WS getting bogged down in the kind of nit-picking there is on WP about Original research. And worse editors migtrating here trying to impose that WP standard. Apwoolrich 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A collaborative translation is quite different from a collaborative original work in my eyes. I strongly feel we need to accept translations as we are severely limited by translations prior to 1923 with the muli-lingual contacts of this project. Perhaps we should require a link to the work in its original language for all Wikisource translations. If it is not in the native language the translator should create and as long as it is accepted there we will accept the translatin. But I do understand your point as we have bad machine translations like William Shakespeare.--BirgitteSB 21:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Birgitte. Original contributions and original translations are quite different. Original translations are still working with a previously published, authoritative text, while original contributions are creating something right out of the blue. I really think this rule is quite a lax one (there are few requirements that must be met: simply, take a source text to translate and add the proper title format to it). Much of WP doesn't apply to us, so I doubt WS will get bogged down with the same junk that's bogging WP down. (And I'm sure we'll be able to keep WP-migrated editors from imposing that standard here, as well.) From what your list sounds like, it sounds like it would be an appropriate material here at WS, so feel free to add it.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a rather easy solution to this problem, at least in normal cases. If Apwoolrich or any user has quality material reflecting their own personal expertise, and they would like to make it available to the public within the context of Wikisource, then all they need to do is post it within their user namespace!

Furthermore, while I agree with the dissatisfaction with nit-picking about original contributions, the specific text that Apwoolrich describes here is an excellent example of annotation: The exact original list could be published at Wikisource, linked to a complementary version with Apwoolrich's notes.Dovi 20:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

In lieu of any better place...

The following works should be able to be easily given a PD translation by a member of Wikisource familiar with the language.

• Vive le Québec libre speech, French (did it myself)
• Du génie, French, original
• Koullouna Lilouataan Lil Oula Lil Alam, Arabic, original
• Lofsöngur, Islenska

Template?

Is there, in fact, a standard template to identify Wikisource-generated translations? -- Visviva 14:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Translator information should be noted in the {{header}} notes; licensing should be noted with {{translation license}}. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:27:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggest Translation namespace

Because ideally we really should be having multiple translations of every non-English text, I think it might be appropriate to establish a "Translation:" namespace, by analogy to the "Author:" namespace. This would provide a catalog of all the PD English translations of a text, without privileging one above the others.--Pharos 12:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how that would be effectively any different than disambiguation pages in the Main namespace.--BirgitteSB 20:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, disambiguation pages are really for different works that only have the same name by chance. A translation namespace would be something considerably more developed. Major works of world literature will have multiple public domain English translations, and these exist in varying states of completeness, abridgment, and even serious modification by old translators (which might indeed be published under completely different names, belying the disambig analogy), that should be carefully annotated in a specific style befitting of a different namespace. I feel that these translations should be fully attributed to one foreign-language work as the source, in the same way that ordinary writings are attributed to their author pages.--Pharos 08:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is for any works that could be ambiguous, they do not need to have the exact same name, and many of them are simply different editions. Each translation disambiguated by date is easily attributed to the correct foreign work through notes in the header as well as with interwiki links when the other language subdomain has the work. Translation are texts like any other we host and should be in the main namespace. None of the alternate namespaces (Author:, Portal:, Wikisource:, etc) contain texts.--BirgitteSB 13:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading this again I don't think I am understanding you 100%. Maybe you could make a mock-up in you userspace of what you want these pages to be.--BirgitteSB 14:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement over translations

I work mainly on the Simple English projects, so I thought of starting a simple English Wikisource. Simple English projects have been created due to their very different, specific target group, which includes those who do not know English well. Some works are written in simplified English (Dr. Seuss, among others), others are translated into it (such as that one book on Shakespeare), and there are many other works that could be translated into it per this page. However, when I tried to create a main page for an SE Wikisource (on oldwikisource, supposedly the place for it), it was deleted and I was told that it could not be a source language and that all English works should be here regardless of level. I disagree, for a variety of reasons, most of which can be found on the Simple English Wikipedia, etc. Two of the other SE projects have survived a closure nomination and a third is still undetermined, so it is not the concept (nor its separation from "real" English) that is the problem. I know that this page is not an official policy, but the fact that the page exists and has been around for quite some time gives it credence, not to mention the fact that it is being followed by some. I also know that not everything that applies here necessarily applies to oldwikisource, but most of it does or should, and EN Wikisource is definitely a trendsetter. Therefore, I'd like to know what you all think. I'm also more than willing to hear on this page from the editor with whom I have the disagreement over there. Comments? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"Simple" is far too subjective a term to base categories around, muchless entire projects. I've never really understood the Simple Wikipedias, and Simple Wikisource seems even more ridiculous, no offence - but if a Dr. Seuss book is public domain, why not host it here? Unlike "putting up your simply article on "bananas" on the main WP "where it might get complicated by further edits by other users", things simply "are what they are" here. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Maxim Gorky} 02:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sherurcij in that Simple English texts should be hosted here on the English Wikisource. We should, at some point, have a Simple Texts Portal or something so that English learners quickly find what they're looking for without having to wade through nonsimple navigation pages. One should not forget that simple English texts may be essentially multi-language. For example, a simplified version of The Canterville Ghost (a favourite of educational boards) made for Spanish speakers may be heavily annotated in Spanish. At some point, we'll need a method to properly recognise the multilingualism of certain texts.--GrafZahl (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree that the English Wikisource should host simple English texts. Now, what I mean by this is not that works originally written in a simplified version of English (e.g., Dr. Seuss) should be excluded but that we should not take source texts and cut them up so they read much more simply than they did before. The way I see it, converting a text to Simple English is not a translation at all, but merely a transformation, and Wikisource explicitly excludes works which have been changed from the original text to something which is still the text but with modifications.

I think if we collect PD/GFDL texts which are simplistic (although, Sherurcij raises a good question as to the subjectivity of "simple") then I think we can collect them here. But I think making our own violates the inclusion policy for this project.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be preferable to have this matter discussed under two segregated threads. One issue is the publication of works which were simple to begin with such as Dr Suess books. But there is quite another matter of translation. It does violence to a translation to break it down from its level of sophistication into a "version" made simple. It is not the same book, at all. This is probably best discussed with a few examples of different types.

Note also there is a different audience in mind when we contrast English learners from young readers or cognitively impaired audiences. At any rate, I invite suggestions as to examples to fit the discussion. For starters, does Tom Sawyer for ESL students, or Hamlet for ESL students, constitute content for Wikisource? How about, Don Quixote, translated by Wikisource, version for ESL students? Geofferybard (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Stale?

This proposal has not been edited since 2008. Is this or is this not a policy? Bennylin (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not a policy. cygnis insignis 19:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Not yet perhaps, but it is a fine idea and well explained here. I certainly use it as a guideline, and great community translations have happened on wikisource. The ease of starting and sharing partial translations is one of the best reasons to post materials here. Sj (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a policy or "guideline" [1]. There has been a suggestion that 'authoritative' societies or published authors could use this site for that purpose, though this is more inline with the scope of wikibooks and wikiversity. Whatever these "great community translations" are, it would not be things like translation of religious text, eg. editions of the bible took teams of scholars and theologians twenty years to complete, here it is done by single anonymous accounts in their spare time. The wonders of wiki-technology and 'crowd-sourcing' do nothing to facilitate this form of self-publishing, which is against the policies of this site. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Bible is a contentious case, because of the many conflicting ideas about what it means to engage in a translation in the first place, and because of the layers of translation variations that are considered significant here [as they are not for most works]. These sorts of translations have generally happened on wikisource, not other sites. The MediaWiki modifications to make side-by-side viewing of two different language versions of a text were developed for use by translators on wikisource texts. Could you provide links to the suggestions you mention having been made? I think wikisource is the right place for translations of primary sources - and I know it is one of the features that makes potential use of the site attractive for, e.g., Classics departments and collections such as the Perseus project. I would be glad to have in a more practical discussion about how to make source translations possible, valuable, and consistent, though this may not be the place. Sj (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The most recent discussion resulted in a user posting The case for translations at Wikisource CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)