Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs

Including translation hubs

Voting on: Adding the following paragraph to WT:CFI, after Idiomaticity section on the same heading level:

Translation hubs

A translation hub (translation target) is a common English multi-word term or collocation that is useful for hosting translations. Some attested translation hubs should be included despite being non-idiomatic and some excluded, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which. Therefore, the following criteria for inclusion of attested non-idiomatic translation hubs are tentative:

• The attested English term has to be common; rare terms don't qualify.
• A translation does not qualify to support the English term if it is:
  • a closed compound that is a word-for-word translation of the English term: German Autoschlüssel does not qualify to support the English "car key"; or
  • a multi-word phrase that is a word-for-word translation of the English term; or
  • a diminutive: Spanish mecedorcito does not qualify to support the English "small rocking chair"; or
  • an augmentative: Portuguese amigão does not qualify to support the English "good friend"; or
  • a comparative or a superlative; or
  • a phrase in a language that does not use spaces to separate words.
• At the very least, two qualifying translations must support the English term. Editor judgment can require a higher number, on a case-by-case basis.
• The existence of a rare single-word English synonym of the considered English term does not disqualify the considered English term: the existence of Anglistics, which is rare, does not disqualify English studies.

Rationale: See Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs#Rationale. The voters only vote on the proposed action, not on the rationale.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• Vote created: Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2014/July#Can we get 'particularly useful translation target' into CFI?
• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2018/March#Vote: Including translation hubs
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2018-03/Including translation hubs

Support

1. Support. A rationale is on the talk page. Dan Polansky (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
2. Support - seems reasonable. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
3. Support -Xbony2 (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
4. Support --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 00:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
5. Weak Support. I would much, much rather this be in the context of a collocations namespace or heading rather than these existing as actual entries. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
6. Support. This makes sense to me, and I think the restrictions are well-chosen. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
7. Support Matthias Buchmeier (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
8. Support — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 03:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
9. Support strongly. It's about time this was codified into policy. This, that and the other (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
10. Support --Vahag (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
11. Support —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 18:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
12. Support ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
13. Support, and good job! bd2412 T 10:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

    Thank you for co-authoring the proposal on my talk page :). --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - I support the idea of translation hubs / targets in principle, but I find one or two of the restrictions are unacceptable, notably the exclusion of word-for-word closed compounds. I think this is rather arbitrary, and I suspect it will be unworkable in practice. I also think all languages should be included, including those like French where two-word terms are the norm when compared with English two-word terms. DonnanZ (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
2. Oppose. My idea of translation hubs was for extremely common things like this way, what number, day after tomorrow (things you need all the time in spoken language). Imo, these criteria are too lenient and are going to reduce the concept to meaninglessness.

   Moreover, since we put all the translations in the same place, it's not clear which ones are qualifying and which ones aren't; nor is it clear who's going to judge whether a translation is qualifying or not. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Abstain --Victar (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
2. Abstain. In general most "translation hub" terms are things that I would include, but this is not the way I would choose to describe the rationale. For me, the point is that usually the existence of lots of specific foreign terms for an English construction is a big indicator that the English term is actually idiomatic, however transparent it appears to English speakers. If there were examples of translation targets that I genuinely did not consider to be idiomatic (in the loose sense of being "the natural way we have of referring to this concept in this language"), then I would be against keeping them, though I'm too lazy to sit and think of concrete examples right now. Ƿidsiþ 06:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)