Add DeepL as a machine translation option in ContentTranslation
Problem: Content translation allows pre-filling the text using machine translation provided by either Google Translate or Yandex Translate. This is better than nothing, but the quality of their translations is poor.
Proposed solution: Add DeepL (https://www.deepl.com/) as a machine translation option. In my experience their output is much better than the other two, although they only support 24 languages. Probably make it the default for the supported languages, too. Human review is still required, but I think this will reduce the effort spent on fixing boring things, e.g. correcting the pronouns in languages with gendered nouns.
Who would benefit: Translators to/from 24 languages
More comments: (I've mostly used it when translating English to Polish, also occasionally for various languages to English, and their result was the best almost every time I tried comparing with the other websites.)
100% agree! I came here to propose the same. In my experience DeepL is really better than Google T. Javiermes (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How does licensing work for this? I know there was a special arrangement worked out for Google Translate. czar 23:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Czar I researched it out of curiosity. The terms of use for DeepL's paid services [1] state that "DeepL does not assume any copyrights to the translations made by Customer using the Products", so there is probably no licensing problem. (Also, I found this page about our Google Translate arrangement with a bit more detail than the page you linked.) Matma Rex (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose risk of multiplication of automatic translation (even good) without human review too hight Triton (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support It's my preferred translator for bulk text, requiring minimal corrections during review. DeepL's quality is noticeable. I'm very pleased using it to translate text from English to Lithuanian (my native language) compared to Google Translator, which often comes short. Kunigas Michailas (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Added a question above czar 23:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Readers need a warning, "this page is machine translated from [source page]", sort of like webpage links framed as "ad-supported article." Otherwise readers may be confused by bits of garbage in the machine result. Gpwitteveen (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Publishing purely machine-translated text is not the point of mw:Content translation (and would be not quite in line with the standards on the various wikis); this proposal only aims to extend the range of available machine translation tools used to aid manual translation. ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support DeepL should be prefered for the languages it supports, and then google, and in the last Yandex, and in the absolute worst case scenario opt for Bing. Pauloroboto (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Javiermes (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose risk of multiplication of automatic translation (even good) without human review too hight Triton (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
14:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
