Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/A2-B

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

Contents

[edit] A2-b (foreign languages)

Speedy deletion criterion A2 should be reworded to include Any article which is an unintellegible attempted translation from another language.
  • Several web services such as Babelfish allow for some form of translation, with wildly varying results.
  • Such articles are easily identified by their identical structure to the foreign article, tortured grammar and word usage, and occasional untranslated word or phrase. They are generally illegible unless you speak the original language, and it's usually more work to clean up these articles than it is to rewrite them from scratch.
  • If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

vote – discuss

[edit] Votes

This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).

[edit] Support

  1. Naturenet | Talk 4 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
  2. --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)
  3. humblefool® 4 July 2005 20:38 (UTC)
  4. -Splash July 5, 2005 00:26 (UTC)
  5. The most egregious cases are so mangled that there is little hope of repair. Even less problematic cases still require an uncomfortably large degree (for me, anyway) of "gee, I hope that's what was meant" translation. I think that in most cases, it's better to start from scratch. Denni☯ 2005 July 5 01:51 (UTC)
  6. Strong support. Its usually easier just to start from scratch then to try to salvage most of these articles. Again, I'm counting on the test run here but this should work to help WP. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 5, 2005 07:13 (UTC)
  7. Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
  8. Support - the current nonsense criteria does not make this clear. r3m0t talk July 5, 2005 19:04 (UTC)
  9. R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)
  10. Support per Denni and Sasquatch. Also, machine translations do not fit patent nonsense criteria. Sietse 6 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)
  11. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)
  12. Carnildo 6 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
  13. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:18 (UTC)
  14. Support Tobycat 7 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
  15. Support. Those machine translations are usually unintelligible even if you do speak the source language. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 8 July 2005 06:45 (UTC)
  16. support no problem with redundant criteria. those translations are useless--Jiang 9 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)
  17. Support Gwk 9 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
  18. Support. Though "unintellegible" usually falls under "patent nonsense". TheCoffee 20:57, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support -- nyenyec ☎ 00:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support With all respect to UncleG's opposition, I've been criticized for speedy-nominating poor translations. DDerby 17:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support Fifelfoo 03:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support– Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:20, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Really bad translations encourage people who do not have access to the original source to wing it (if they can't delete it). The result, while grammatically correct, may have very little correlation to the source material. David Remahl 03:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  24. All my support vote are belong to this. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support.elvenscout742 15:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Dragons flight July 4, 2005 20:33 (UTC). Babelfish and other autotranslations are sufficiently intelligible to warrant a VFD rather than being speedied, unless of course the result is speediable on other grounds.
  2. An article that is "unintelligible" is already speedy deletable as patent nonsense. Adding a separate criterion for the subset of stuff that is both unintelligible and a translation (what the proposal as worded says) is redundant. Uncle G 4 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, per Uncle G. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)
  4. If something is bad enough that it's intelligible, then it's nonsense. Otherwise take it to VfD. JYolkowski // talk 5 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
  5. Bad translations can be cleaned up, or at least listed as needing translation. If it can be determined that the subject of the translation qualifies for VfD or CSD, it should go to one of those places. NatusRoma 5 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
  6. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)
  7. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)
  8. Per Uncle G. --Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 03:21 (UTC)
  9. Per Uncle G. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)
  10. Per Uncle G Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:22 (UTC)
  11. Per Uncle G.Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)
  12. I agree with NatusRoma JoJan 5 July 2005 08:39 (UTC)
  13. Actually that's right, this would be redundant with the criterion for patent nonsense. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 09:19 (UTC)
  14. Lectonar 5 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)
  15. Per Uncle G — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
  16. We already delete gibberish. We don't need a CSD to tell us we can do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)
  17. Per Uncle G. Meelar (talk) July 5, 2005 16:08 (UTC)
  18. Per Uncle G. -- Joolz 5 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Uncle G has it right and I distrust any new policy proposal which contains a spelling mistake. David | Talk 5 July 2005 19:43 (UTC)
  20. Instruction creep. David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
  21. --Mononoke 5 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. If "unintelligible" isn't just a subset of patent nonsense, then it should be explained more clearly, to prevent misinterpretation. Factitious July 5, 2005 23:03 (UTC)
  23. — Asbestos | Talk 5 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  24. Strong Oppose. Instruction creep. If anyone's not completely certain about what "patent nonsense" is, VfD is where we decide together. Unfocused 6 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)
  26. Per Uncle G. Sam Vimes 6 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. Uncle G said it best. Thryduulf 6 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)
  28. Agree with Uncle G. --Laura Scudder | Talk 6 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)
  29. Oppose per Uncle G. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)
  30. Oppose, as Uncle G says. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. And I would like to add another possibility. My translations from my mother tongue into the target language(s) were sometimes doubted as result of machine translation. And in every case I need to explain it was not. It is too risky to be speedy deletion candidate criteria. --Aphaea* 6 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
  32. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
  33. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:16 (UTC) Have you ever heard of wikipedia:cleanup ??? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 6 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. If it's nonsense, that's already covered. If it's at all readable, that's a VfD. Who knows, someone might be able to salvage it, using the poorly translated version as a guide to his "total reworking" of it. Sounds like something I might attempt on occassion. Fieari July 6, 2005 20:55 (UTC)
  35. Oppose, if it's nonsense, it's nonsense. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:30 (UTC)
  36. Oppose per Uncle G and Fieari. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 07:39 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. The thing to do with these beasts (assuming an editor cannot clean it up themselves) is to tag it with {{cleanup-translation}} and list it with a short description in the second section of WP:PNT. There is no time limit for articles in this section, and one article in Tajik has been sitting there for nearly a year, but it is one place where a helpful multilingual WikiPedian may take it on. Physchim62 7 July 2005 09:27 (UTC)
  38. strongly.  Grue  7 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)
  39. Oppose for reasons above. Gazpacho 8 July 2005 02:40 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. Better to tag them with a cleanup tag if they're salvagable. If they're completely unintelligible they're already a candidate for speedy as patent nonsense. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 07:19 (UTC)
  41. Opose per Uncle G -- Rune Welsh ταλκ July 8, 2005 09:01 (UTC)
  42. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:06 (UTC)
  43. Such things should be cleaned up or rewritten as stubs, not deleted. Fornadan (t) 19:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  44. Oppose as per Uncle G Steve block 21:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  45. If truly unintelligble then this is already covered. But many are merely awkward to read, and should cleaned up, not deleted. Marginal cases can go to vfd.
  46. Shanes 05:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  47. Oppose, per Uncle G. --Sn0wflake 07:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  48. Oppose wot Uncle G sed Dan100 (Talk) 08:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  49. Oppose. Scrambled translations can be the first step to a completely reworked article. Besides, unintelligble is in the eye of the beholder and could lead to deletion of material outside the deleter's field of interests. - Mgm|(talk) 11:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  50. one word: cleanup.Inigmatus 15:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  51. Oppose, as like many others before me, per Uncle G. IanManka 04:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  52. Oppose, but distinctly not per Uncle G. Bad translations are not patent nonsense. However, this criterion would be abused to delete poorly written articles that were never translated. Superm401 | Talk 04:23, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  53. Oppose, a bad translation of an article on a subject that is worthy of inclusion is better than nothing at all. For example, an article on a notable French philosopher who is relatively unknown in English-speaking countries that is badly translated from the French wikipedia could encourage someone, who otherwise would have never even heard of the philosopher, to rewrite or reword the article. In fact, this has occurred, User:Zantastik has done so on more than one occassion. This criterion might eliminate that possibility. - Jersyko talk 16:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  54. Strong Oppose. Unintellegible is far too subjective a term. What is unintellegible to the typical person can be clear as day to someone who has worked with people who make the same mistakes while learning English. Just today I changed "profesional trajectory" to "career", which I know is a common mistake made by Latin Americans. Casito⇝Talk 02:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  55. Oppose- are we to trust a computer rather than humans? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Wikipedia%7ECriteria_for_speedy_deletion_Proposal_A2-B_666e.html"