Template talk:Notenglish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this template should be changed or deleted. Deletion is too harsh, and it makes Wikipedia really biased. - Allyunion 14:49, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia. Articles that aren't in English don't belong here. Articles that are not in English need to be translated or moved, they can't stay here. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Je ne crois que les pages en autres langues si soyez dans le wikipedia anglais. Ca c'est stupide. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Minnasan wa eigo ga wakaru jya nai yo, jp.wikipedia.org wa iku imasu. ... wow, my Japanese is horrible. And to think, I have a degree in the bloody language. --Golbez 16:04, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"みんなは英語が分かるわけじゃないよ。日本語の記事はjp.wikipedia.orgに移動される。" any good ;-)? --Ianb 23:42, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Showoff. :P --Golbez 15:23, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

no degree but I live there, hihi ;-) --Ianb 21:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bah, so you know just how pathetic mine was. :P --Golbez 22:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Instämmer med Cyrius. Vad är det för mening med att ha såna artiklar här? Vad är själva poängen? Jag fattar ingenting. Bishonen 01:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please see Pages needing translation into English, the page where this is actually handled.
Favor de ver Pages needing translation into English, la página donde tratamos con artíclos que se necesitan traducir.
Bitte lesen Sie die Seite Pages needing translation into English, die die ins Englische zu übersetzenden Artikel auflistet.
Va rog, vezi Pages needing translation into English...
but you get the idea... Jmabel 02:36, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
See also Sidor som behöver översättas till engelska. Bishonen 19:14, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Notenglish

The template "Notenglish" is very biased.

This article needs translation. If the article is not rewritten in English within the next two weeks, it will be listed for deletion.

Deleted?!? That's just too extreme. That just suggest that Wikipedia is an English only Encyclopedia, as opposed to a community of editors who speak various languages. The notenglish template is a good idea, but I think it needs to be toned down to something like: "This page has been listed on the List of Pages to be Translated to English. Please help Wikipedia by translating this entry into English so that it can be easily translated into other languages."

See Template_talk:Notenglish for discussion.

-- Allyunion 14:55, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But, um... this IS an english-only encyclopedia. Hence the little "en" at the top of the screen, in the addressbarthingy. I would presume that es, jp, de, etc. would have similar policies. --Golbez 15:59, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As an occasional supporter of "native" terms, I do however, suggest that this template is perfectly warranted. Any non-English article content should either be translated, or if no-one's doing so, deleted. One should perhaps first check if it has come from the appropriate language wiki, if not, copy it there first. That step should maybe be added to the template. (If it's French, stick it on fr: if not there already. If it's nonsense, the fr: editors should pick it up) zoney ▓█▒ talk 16:50, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Zoney. Why is anyone loading an article not in English into the English Wikipedia or an article not in French into the French Wikipedia and so on? Possibly by mistake ... that is the editor works on more than one Wikipedia and accidently inserted an article into the wrong language version. Possibly it is a kind of vandalism, dropping down an article incomprehensible to most readers just for the fun of minor disturbance. Possibly an editor copied something from another language Wikipedia and intended to translate and never got around to it.

So just move such an article to the corresponding language Wikipedia when one exists instead of leaving it here. Always add "-en" to the article name and move it to an appropriate cleanup list in the target Wikipedia because there is something odd about a non-English article appearing in the English language Wikipedia and so such an article should be made visible. (It may duplicate an article already on the target Wikipedia. Then forget about it. If the language is incorrectly identified, it will still probably have been sent to a Wikipedia using a closely related language and the editors there will likely be able to properly identify the language and forward it correctly or possibly translate it themselves if there is no Wikipedia for the actual language of the article.

Jallan 00:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking it should read as something along the lines of "This article needs translation. If the article is not rewritten in English within the next two weeks, it will be moved to the approprate language version of Wikipedia." Just because we can't read it, doesn't mean it has to be deleted. Maybe the person intended originally to put it into one of the other language Wikipedias. I think a contribution is still a contribution, even if it is in the wrong place... just move it to the right place, and make sure it's worthy. - Allyunion 09:15, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This stuff is mostly handled at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. There are about a dozen of us quite active in trying to handle things like this appropriately case-by-case. Wikipedia talk:Pages needing translation into English would probably be the best place to propose any changes in policy, but I'd suggest that you first familiarize yourself with what we currently do. Yes, if something looks encyclopedic and the relevant language lacks an article we put it there, but there are a lot of other possible dispositions of non-English content in en.wikipedia. I don't think the template is the place to fully discuss policy, and it already points to the page that does. -- Jmabel 02:28, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I would think the articles would be transwikied before being deleted. But maybe that is supposed to be implied? anthony (see warning) 00:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, an article that is written in a language other than english should be m:transwikied to the 'pedia of the language it was written in before it is either translated or deleted. The editors at the target location can choose to either keep it, merge it with an existing article, or delete it, at their leisure. Gentgeen 07:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course, occasionally we get the rather interesting one that's not in a language that has its own 'pedia. F'rinstance, we got a copyvio from this: [1] -- do we have a Somalipedia? --jpgordon{gab} 20:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We do have a Somali language Wikipedia, but copyright violations should not be transwikied anywhere. They should go to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Angela.

[edit] If already covered by another Wikipedia

Criterion #2 of the Criterion for Speedy Deletion states that Foreign language articles that exist on another Wikimedia project can summarily be speedily deleted. If this is the case, the template needs a disclaimer to say that it can only be applied to articles not covered by any other encyclopedia. I've placed a similar query at the talk page for speedy deletion, but one or the other needs to be amended. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 14:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Can be speedy-deleted doesn't mean must be. Often at Wikipedia:Page needing translation into English we decide to do a rescue, because we go "gee, we really should have this article". The decision is probably best made there. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions

I reverted to the version with the instructions visible on the main template, without an extra click. My reason is that I feel (I have no statistics, though) that the number of new pages that were added to CAT:PNT without being listed on WP:PNT was lower while the instruction were directly visible. Kusma (討論) 21:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. - Jmabel | Talk 05:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone recently added "or translation requires changing the sense as well as language" to the template. I have no idea what this means. I strongly suggest that it either be removed or reworded. - Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that it didn't make any sense is reason enough to remove it.--Esprit15d 11:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)