Category talk:Translation hubs
Deletion debate[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
POV... but we do have quite a lot of entries that could go in here, if kept. The problem is, nobody will agree on what they are. My candidates would be things like DVD player (a player for DVDs) and taxi driver (driver of a taxi). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's useful if words that might have non-SoP translations are included. We could also decide to design a new kind of entry, one which has just a translation table in it. The rule would then be that we only add a definition if it's not SoP. —CodeCat 10:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the concept. Shorten the name or make a template to speed entry. We can develop and refine as we go. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, I like the category name. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I kinda like this category, but I dread the arguments it will cause. For selfishness, I'd say keep, thinking more globally, I'd say delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oddly enough, I like the category name. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep the concept. Shorten the name or make a template to speed entry. We can develop and refine as we go. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Kept, no appetite for the deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Deletion debate (2)[edit]
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This category may be replaced by Category:English sums of parts, to avoid obscure verbose. --Daniel. 15:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'd rather delete the other category as vague. -- Prince Kassad 15:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and the category above has already passed an RFD (I nominated it). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- One of the arguments pro-keeping the category was "Keep the concept. Shorten the name or make a template to speed entry. We can develop and refine as we go" I agree with that, and consider "Category:English sums of parts" a good substitute for the category. It's also more common; people say "sum of parts" all the time, but apparently nobody (I checked) mentions "non-idiomatic translation target" without referring to the category in question. --Daniel. 15:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is more important that the category name (if it is not hidden) be intelligible (self-explanatory would be better) to a new user than that it be easy for the cognescenti to type. Hardly any of us ever typed out the expansion of NISoP. If we could type {{EnNITT}} and get a category name at least as clear as the name above, that would be ideal. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just use HotCat. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is more important that the category name (if it is not hidden) be intelligible (self-explanatory would be better) to a new user than that it be easy for the cognescenti to type. Hardly any of us ever typed out the expansion of NISoP. If we could type {{EnNITT}} and get a category name at least as clear as the name above, that would be ideal. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- One of the arguments pro-keeping the category was "Keep the concept. Shorten the name or make a template to speed entry. We can develop and refine as we go" I agree with that, and consider "Category:English sums of parts" a good substitute for the category. It's also more common; people say "sum of parts" all the time, but apparently nobody (I checked) mentions "non-idiomatic translation target" without referring to the category in question. --Daniel. 15:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and the category above has already passed an RFD (I nominated it). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus. --Daniel 11:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This category contains several entries which should not belong here. I propose to remove entries with current full definitions from this category. If you disagree with a specific entry's idiomaticity, feel free to send it to RFD.--2001:DA8:201:3512:F0D2:BCEA:BF85:63BB 13:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Closed as stale. — surjection ⟨??⟩ 22:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I propose to rename this category to Category:English translation targets, so that we don't need to waste time to discuss whether each entry is idiomatic or not.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- The issue is that technically, any English entry with a translation section is a translation target. This category is for a very small subset of those entries that would not be kept otherwise. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- The purpose of the category would be "terms which are mainly retained for the benefit of translation". However I am considered to launch a discussion to modify CFI to formally include these terms.--Zcreator alt (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that this category was supposed to correspond to the use of the "this entry is only here for translations" template, because an entry should only have a definition if it's idiomatic; and any entry with a definition is a normal entry (right?) and can have translations, either in the entry itself, or centralized in some synonym. I don't understand why this category seems to be used on pages that do have definitions; it seems like an error. Hence, it seems like we'd still have to make the same decision about idiomaticity, about whether or not to use that template. Hence, I see no benefit to the rename. (But Meta has pointed out a big drawback.) - -sche (discuss) 17:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- It may be a debate whether this category is useful at all - we don't have a categories for entries kept for COALMINE rule; and what the definition should be for entries kept as translation targets (imo we can alternatively treat them as normal entries and describe them literally e.g. cooked rice as "rice that is cooked" instead of using the translate only template, once we formally include them to CFI). Again, this should be discussed in a wider venue (like Beer parlour).--Zcreator alt (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Struck as the category is renamed.--Zcreator alt (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- It may be a debate whether this category is useful at all - we don't have a categories for entries kept for COALMINE rule; and what the definition should be for entries kept as translation targets (imo we can alternatively treat them as normal entries and describe them literally e.g. cooked rice as "rice that is cooked" instead of using the translate only template, once we formally include them to CFI). Again, this should be discussed in a wider venue (like Beer parlour).--Zcreator alt (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- 42 entries in the category remain to be moved, after which the redirect should perhaps be deleted to discourage unwitting (e.g. HotCat) re-addition of entries to it. - -sche (discuss) 01:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- As Zcreator indicated above they moved the category in 2018, and it is now empty, so I am marking this discussion as resolved. - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 06:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
On the subject of removing "English" from certain category names (like several requests above)... should we just call this "Category:Translation hubs"? Even rare cases currently discussed in the Tea Room where a proverb exists in several other languages but not English (which we currently don't categorize at all, but which Fay Freak says he creates templates to usefully crosslink translations of, which probably should be categorized together with our other translations hubs) are better handled with one "Translation hubs" category than with, say, "Russian translation hubs", "Chinese translation hubs", no? - -sche (discuss) 19:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Support: More concise and less confusing. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 07:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Catonif (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Moved. Catonif (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)