Talk:garantipruntejo

RFD discussion: December 2015

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (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.

---

garantipruntejo

Seems to be made up --Stubborn Pen (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Normally I'd say this is an RFV matter but I'm ok with speedy deleting old Tbot entries as Tbot isn't a human user. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Um, Tbot was run by a human, wasn't it? Donnanz (talk) 10:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well all bots are 'run' by a human aren't they? Tbot was pretty hands off creating translations based on other wikis and translations here. My point is really I wouldn't subject entries with no human input to the same standard I would entries created by humans. The French Wiktionary ended up with fr:stick to the pan at one point because of their version of Tbot. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

As I posted below, Tbot got this from a translation at pawnshop, and the translation was entered by a human. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• First of all, you know better than to post this at RFD rather than RFV. Secondly, I deleted it per MG. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• On one hand, Tbot was a bot, using an algorithm. But Tbot would pick garantipruntejo from a translation table (indeed, it is still at pawnshop), and the form would typically be entered into the translation table by a human. So entries created by Tbot should not be easier to delete. The propoper process is RFV; deleting via RFD is out of order. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  Historically, that's not been how people see it. The entries are only as trustworthy as the translations, and those can be removed without an RFV, so the unchecked entries should be as well. And believe me, you don't want RFV to be flooded with all the shit that Tbot has created, because there were a lot of terrible entries, and many still exist. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  I've never seen any evidence that Tbot has created significant volume of bad entries. I certainly saw no bad Czech entries that Tbot created. Nor have I any reason to believe that Tbot generally created bad entries: if anything, Tbot merely replicated what was in translation tables into separate entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  Maybe some users only notice the bad Tbot entries, but as Dan says the majority were good, and only needed confirming. They were taken from translation tables when no entry existed in the appropriate language at the time. There's about 50 left in Norwegian which I must get around to doing, and plenty left in German when I last looked. Donnanz (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  There was a lot of crap, and I think most of it has been cleaned up a while ago. RU was not at all careful when adding translations, so those he did himself, chiefly Swahili, are among the worst offenders. I suppose there were no incompetent users adding Czech translations when Tbot was active. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  The point is that knowing that an entry was created by Tbot gives you no more indication of craphood than knowing that an entry was created directly by a human. Put diffently, Tbot-created is no better predictor of craphood than human-created. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  Actually, tools.wmflabs.org created pages counter for TBot gives me mere 78 deleted entries, which is astounding. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  Some were possibly corrected rather than being deleted: I seem to remember doing that. Donnanz (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  Sure, but given the translation tables could contain all sort of human-entered malinformation, it is still pretty awesome. From what I remember, Tbot also checked against the non-English Wiktionaries. It seemed actually pretty clever. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Even if the translations were added by a human, the entries were not created by them. It is in no way inaccurate to say these entries weren't created by humans. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  It's not worth arguing the toss about it: just verify the remaining Tbot entries if you can; for example Portuguese and Danish are completely done. Donnanz (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

  It is not inaccurate but it is irrelevant. Your argument for speedy rests on the claim that, because the entry was created by a bot, it is therefore less reliable. That argument has been refuted; the bot-made entry is as reliable as the human-made addition to the translation table used by the bot. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No, because adding a red linked translation is not equivalent to making an entry. Furthermore that isn't really my argument anyway. In a nutshell, you can't hurt a bot's feelings by deleting an entry. A lot of RFD is about following the proper procedure so nobody gets upset, whereas you can skip all that with a bot, because the bot won't be getting upset you delete its entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

To quote you, "I wouldn't subject entries with no human input to the same standard I would entries created by humans". That has been refuted: these entries did have human input. And RFD is about a general proper consensus-based process, not about avoding hurting someone's feelings. No one has shown Tbot entries were generally less reliable than entries directly created by humans. All the hatred toward Tbot entries that I have seen in Wiktionary is irrational, as far as I can tell. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So if I write a book and someone makes a movie based on that book, I've made a film have I? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That does not seem to be an applicable analogy, mostly because a Tbot entry contains the exact information that was previously in the translation table and nothing else, whereas a movie based on a book contains much added material. Tbot does not add any information or make any inductive inferences; it merely picks what is in one page and places it in another page in a different syntactic format. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

And again, for the reader, only 78 Tbot entries were deleted in all time, and this RFD is about deleting a Tbot entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Since Tbot created 36 389 entries and 78 were deleted, the probability that a randomly picked Tbot created entry should be deleted is about 0.2%. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no hatred towards Tbot entries, just, the ones that are left are left for a reason. Either we have no access to competent speakers of the language in question, or we do and none of them can verify the entry. Remember the whole idea behind Tbot entries according to Robert Ullmann who ran the bot was that leftover entries would get deleted. The difference is translations get less scrutiny than entries, and this bot makes translations into entries with no scrutiny, meaning bad translations that nobody's looked it get full entries. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why the leftover should be deleted. And I don't see why separate entries are considered more reliable than entries in translation tables; I saw no evidence to support that claim. Again, only 78 Tbot entries were deleted; that low number is probably explained by Tbot's double checking in other Wiktionaries AFAIR. Just check the data; it is much more interesting than speculation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)