Talk:OmegaT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Requested move

  • talk:Wikipedia:Leuce/OmegaT--Wikipedia:Leuce/OmegaT → OmegaT … Rationale: The current OmegaT page is basically the readme.txt file of the program, which was temporarily put up. The contents of this new version was extensively discussed on the OmegaT user group, and some of the developers also took part in the discussion to ensure that the information is accurate. — leuce 08:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to applaud the cooperation that made the new article happen .. Lovely :) GerardM 00:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding two issues

[edit] Regarding the following contents:

However, the tags exported don't contain the actual formatting information from the source document, so its use is rather limited.

This is irrelevant since what matters is the contents of the _source_ tags and the fact that OmegaT's TMX matches them _formally_. Eventually the target tags (TMX compliant hence full matches will be generated against source) will be relaced by the source tags which will produce the expected code.

[edit] Regarding the following contents:

Embedded OLE objects, page headers and page footers are not supported.

Embedded OLE objects are supported as long as they are converted to OOo format during the conversion (there are settings for that). They can be translated just like any other OOo file.

Regarding headers and footers, this is supposed to have been fixed last summer with the new rewrite of the OOo filter. Buggy ?

[edit] Modification of the fork item

216.252.85.232 has decided to edit the fork item to put it between tools created by OmegaT contributors and TMX creation tools.

The point is of course that omegat+ being an obsolete fork, it cannot be useful to OmegaT users. Hence the positioning at the bottom of the "relatd software" item. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc helary (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Not all software under "related" software can be used with the current version of OmegaT. Besides, software does not have to be mutually compatible to be "related". The usefulness of mentioned "related" software to users of the current product is irrelevant.--leuce 20:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The current re-wording of the omegat+ item is a revertion to an old version that was not deemed exact and was replaced by the item as it was before 216.252.85.232. omegat+ is not an improved version of OmegaT. It is at best a downgraded version of OmegaT 1.4.5 and the next to come releases only exist as vaporware.

Instead of parasiting OmegaT's page, maybe it is time to create a omegat+ page on wikipedia to transfer the propaganda there.

The wording of the fork section must be objective and accurate. Though there is no proof that it is 'improved', one can't say that it is 'downgraded' either (a product is not necessarily considered "better" simply because it is more complex or has more features, nor can it be considered "poorer" just because it is simpler or has less features).
As for the trademark registration, that has not yet been proven. If it can be proven, one might change the wording on the article slightly to reflect the fact.--leuce 20:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] adding Ja:OmegaT link

{{Editprotected}} add ja:OmegaT

done. CMummert · talk 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Status and mention of OmegaT+

In my opinion, OmegaT+ is a fork of OmegaT and therefore deserves mention on the OmegaT page. It is the only fork of OmegaT that is currently distributed under its own name, at a separate Sourceforge account. The forking caused quite a stir, and thus has news value. OmegaT+ is not "obsolete" (whatever that means in this context).

It is a known fact that the trade mark registration has been disputed by the creator of OmegaT+, and the OmegaT team has done nothing to prove otherwise (they are under no obligation to do so, either). However, the fact that the registration is publically disputed by a relevant roleplayer, and the fact that the dispute has not been discredited, makes it "disputed" as far as Joe Public is concerned. --leuce 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides for the "news" value (and one could argue that it is all old news since the fork has not produced any improvements over OmegaT since it was created) it is arguable that the fork is published under "its own name": the names vary depending on the mood of the forker: omepatplus/OmegaT+/omega t+ and systematically relate to the OmegaT project to confuse the user. The last move from the forker is to call its fork's main application "omegat" which is exactly the name under which the OmegaT project is registered on SourceForge.
The contents of the project is an obsolete version of OmegaT 1.4.5: by obsolete I mean not up to date with the various bugfixes and added functions that make OmegaT the free CAT of choice for translators. I also mean that the other software "distributed" by OmegaT is software already available from different places _without any significant improvement_ (except -?- for the compression scheme). Basically there is no technical value whatsoever to the fork, except its annoyance value, and I'd argue that user deserve more that being advertized a package that claims to provide significant improvements when in facts it only provides a down graded experience as far as the "translation editor" soft omegat is concerned. As for the rest of the software, the release notes for a number of them on the fork's SourceForge page do not mention any authorship or licensing information, again, in a move to confuse the users.
It is a known fact that the forker has repeatedly refused to accept providing a naming that would not confuse users. Similarly the OmegaT team has done sufficiently to protect the registered trademark: the OmegaT+ page has been erased from Wikipedia, the user laseray has been banned for vandalism.
The registration is disputed by the only person who decided from the beginning to infringe on OmegaT's right to protect its name. The registration data is publicaly available for people who know where to look at and is provided to parties that are related to the infringement case, along with the documentation that proves that the forker has knowingly used the trademark and has systematically refused to consider proposing a different name (as well as denying the right of the OmegaT project to register its trademark).
To summarize my position: when the fork was first published, its technical status was equivalent to the current version of OmegaT and thus its mention on the OmegaT page had real value (which I never argued against after we first settled that). Since then (more than 2 years ago) the fork has not produced any improvement, the fork claims "the next version" will improve the current OmegaT without providing any code to prove such claims, the fork has totally failed to build a user base and a community on which to thrive, the forker has repeatedly vandalized various articles on Wikipedia where OmegaT was mentioned to the point of writing false information to further confuse users, and it has even started to take similar positions on professional translator's fora (Proz for ex).
Considering the current state of the fork, I consider it has lost any informative value on the OmegaT article at Wikipedia and the fork should be considered dead for all practical purposes. When the fork provides the new code (in whatever form) then it will be another matter. The OmegaT page should not be a place to confuse readers and should not be a place that promotes vaporware.
Jc helary 00:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Article is a clear case of self-promotion via SPAM. Editors are members of the OmegaT project or closely related. Jc helary is an OmegaT project member. See http://sf.net/projects/omegat for a list of members who have edited these pages. This is against Wikipedia policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPAM).

I disagree. This article is written in a neutral style and contains facts. The editors of this article are members of the OmegaT project, yes, and that gives them the advantage of knowing what they're talking about and being able to spot vandalism more easily. It is not against Wikipedia rules to be affiliated to articles one edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leuce (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is clearly a case of self-promotion by OmegaT people. The article is very long and detailed, and yet the software in question is basically a barely-functioning piece of junk used by only a few extremists. This is an advert and it is spam. --Flash gormless 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps but I'm using it too for some time now. Also I would be rather interested to see what alternatives for translator tools are out there, so far I only found OmegaT to suit me, and believe me I did search for tools to help me translate from English to Romanian. But so far I stuck with this one, because it's free and configurable. But as I said I'm open to choices, but for that we need more articles like this, not less. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language Support

It might be useful to list any challenging languages or language types (ideographic or right-to-left, for example) that OmegaT can or can't support, and give some idea of how many languages it can support. Presumably it can support all the languages in which it has been localised. Ma1cius (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)