Proposal talk:Translator (Hire a sufficient number of professional translators)
Google Translate. Boom
- Even though I love Jeremy Piven/Arie Gold quotes, please elaborate on the 'boom' part, and the particular Good Things (tm) that Google Translate can offer for software localisation. "TM. Boom" is something that could have been proposed, also. Still, machine translation, and translation memory assisted translation and CAT still have to be proofread and corrected before the translations are usable in the user interface. Assisted translation: yes, automated translation will present users with UI horror. Siebrand 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
rename the page
- A would prefer to rename the page as proposal:machine translation wiki.
Study of various language wikipedia history pages can provide huge language corpus for machine level translation study. Mediawiki feature of template and bots also to limited extent can serve as translation tool.
so can we request more features for machine translations? any suggessions? Mahitgar 07:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Extremely hard. If Wikimedia have the means to realize it, it would be very usable and nice, just think of the ease of translating articles, but according to my knowledge it is very hard and expensive. Rursus 18:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to see it implemented, as I am sure I'd have a job for a while, and I suppose that fact subtracts credibility if I try to clarify that machine translation isn't any more practical, as it simply doesn't work except at dictionary level. Anyone who can understand the two languages of a machine translated text knows what I'm talking about. -- Thamus joyfulnoise 03:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that an automatic translation option be made available.
Imagine someone who speaks, say, serbo-croat reserching Castles in Europe. He may find a few hundred photographs on wiki commons. With descriptions in English, French, and German. Now, that might be OK. But it might not. I'd like to suggest a toggle mode that would replace defined fields by machine translation (translating names makes no sense) with the original shown underneath.
If the originator is switched-on enough to provide translations, then those whould be substituted, of course.
I'd display automatic translations in grey, to make it clear that they were less trustworthy. --18.104.22.168 13:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- Computerised translation tools are improving rapidly, particularly the statistically based systems developed by Google. In my opinion, what is needed is an optional translation feature which could assist editors in expanding their own language versions on articles which have already attained a high standard in English or other major languages. Similar tools could of course be used to assist with the expansion of English-language stubs where more complete articles appear in other languages.
- In general, more should be done to encourage people to explore other language versions.Ipigott 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- The impact on our end users will only be positive. It may however have an impact on the volunteer translator community - as paid translators are joining their groups, they may be discouraged, or think their contributions at translatewiki.net are worth less. In this light, I would go for trying to reach out to the professional L10n teams at large companies like Google, Microsoft, e.a., and ask them to encourage their translators to work on the languages that are underresourced in MediaWiki at the moment. A few of the very large languages in the world are very underrepresented in MediaWiki at the moment (to name a few: Oriya, Hausa, Zulu, Burmese, Min Nan Chinese, Urdu and Wu Chinese - reference: MediaWiki localisation in the 50 most spoken languages). Those getting a better localisation will make the Wikipedias in those languages be much more inviting - i.e. accessible/usable - and this could be a tilting point to get activite participants in the content area, which in turn leads to higher visibility in search enigines, which leads to more traffic, and from there the cycle will repeat itself. Siebrand 17:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)