Talk:Translation of the week/Translation candidates/Archive 1

Compute method

What Compute method of vote? Support - Oppose = Valid vote? --Shizhao 16:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also:

• Should the one who submits an article as a candidate be able to vote for it?
• Should there be a notice is the article is created by the user — maybe not a rule, but a good manner? Ie. "Note: Self nomination".

These are rather minor things, but a rule of thumb would be useful. --Kooo 09:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The idea of self-nomination works for images, less so for articles. I'm leaning toward not considering it. On counting votes: the total number of votes cast per candidate might be considered, for example, to break ties. A-giâu 21:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should the suggestor for a candidate be counted as a support vote? --PuzzletChung 16:03, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I notice one reason that has been given against some candidates is "too big". I gather this refers to the length of the article more than the importance or difficulty of the topic (though these are often related). But I also notice the project does not currently require full translation of an article: "the first paragraph of an important article is chosen to be translated" (emphasis added). A-giâu 19:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's why I put on Kanji. Its first paragraph is not so big.

Removal of some candidates

I think it is better for us to remove some candidates with many opposition like Cosmos. How about introducing new rules like

• If a candidate has more opposing votes than supporting ones after a week, it will be removed from the list.
• If a candidate has no vote after a week, it will be removed from the list.

--Aphaia 21:25, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think these would be good rules, but a week can be too short. How about a fortnight? (two weeks). If an absolute limit cannot be introduced, the rules could be something like "You may remove a candidate if an opposing consensus has been reached." --Kooo 09:53, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Both your idea sound good. If a candidate gets opposing consensus after two weeks, it may be removed from the list and so on ... --Aphaia 21:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two third major rule..

It is too strict in the early stage. First negative vote can move a candidate to other section. (1-1, hence 50%). How about to keep a candidate until it receives three negative votes? -- ChongDae 11:49, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a modification

• If a candidate has an equal number of opposing votes and supporting votes after 3 months, you may remove it from the list.

I suggest that reduce to 1 month, because actually the project have much candidates, and maybe need some movement.--Taichi - (あ！) 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Articles with few votes rarely moves up from the bottom list. One month is enough for everyone to react./Johan Jönsson 18:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

nominating a candidate

Just curious, how do I nominate a candidate for translation of the week? JB82 ({ ! }) 02:07, 31 January 2006 UTC

I have the same doubt. I want to nomitae Joseba Sarrionaindia (eu),(es) for translation of the week. It's a basque writer, who made a prison break. There's also a link with a translation to one of his poems to many languages. --Theklan 00:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Theklan, nominating a candidate is easy. As I see, you made it. :-) --Marbot 18:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Greeklish & Arabic Chat Alphabet

I nominate en:Greeklish and en:Arabic Chat Alphabet --195.93.60.131 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Week 39/2006 - Current nomination as TOTW

Hello, I cannot help it, but I think that this weeks TOTW article (en:Blood In The Water match) was not long enough on the candidate list. I have at least 20 friends throughout wikipedia who will vote any given article to be the TOTW article within a few days. Thus the community here would not have the chance to have at least a look at the proposed article. I think that this is not good. Therefore I propose to expand the current rules of the game by the following centence:

• A candidate must be a minimum of two weeks on the list.

What do you think? Best regards --Marbot 16:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I think that is neccesary reform the votation because sometimes is bad these opportunities.--Taichi - (あ！) 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Same for Siege of belgrade, two weeks rule will be good but not a solution. This game is still unfair for fair players:)--Ugur Basak 13:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is true. Since week 39 was the second incident I felt to start a discussion about it. However, an extended minimum voting period per article (one month!?!) will give all community members the opportunity to comment on such proceedings. --Marbot 22:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I thinking some ideas that will help future votations.

1. No IP votes or proposals. (neccesarty)
2. Only votes for users that participate in Meta or in a Wikimedia project. (neccesary)
3. The candidate must be at least 2 or 3 weeks in the TotW candidates page.
4. If the candidate has equal support and oppose votes, will be removed in one month. (neccesary)
5. If the candidate has more of 1/3 oppose votes, will be removed in two months. (optional)
6. The oppose votes must explain the objection, if don't have a objection, will be anullated the vote. (optional)

Maybe with this will help and musn't repeat these cases.--Taichi - (あ！) 22:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

ad 1. ok, but proposals should be possible for IPs on the talk page. Such proposals then to be verified within two weeks and moved to the candidate page if positive.

ad 2. ok, voters should include a link to their wikimedia project user page in case they are not active on META (100 edits within a year)

ad 3. ok, minimum voting period must be one month (neccesity)

ad 4. ok

ad 5. ok

ad 6. not ok, This will lead to discussions I would not like to see on this nomination/canditacy page.

--Marbot 22:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Marbot's #1 opinion is good, and #6 can lead to discussions, may be this type of discussions can be made on comments part. About 2nd rule, it's really difficult to manage. Checking their local projects, asking them for in which project they are active etc. May be this can be limited with activeness on meta (100edits/year). But i've one more proposal, this sounds a bit cruel; a management group can be assigned with voting (like arbitration thing) and this group can decide to remove proposals like Week 39. --Ugur Basak 11:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish help in manage the page, and improve any change that if neccesary. --Taichi - (あ！) 05:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think about this subject. Currently this project really assumes good faith, but it can be very easily abused, like 39th week. I guess the best thing to solve this isues is, first write a warning message below to When proposing a candidate, please part. Like, if you do vote stacking your proposal can be removed from the list. And then select 2-3 users for management, they can decide to remove proposals which look like vote stacking. May be first they are warned in comment part ( I don't know). But the most important thing is doing these politely not like biting. Maybe we can summarize like in en:Wikipedia:Survey notification Fundamental to Wikipedia is the concept of consensus.

Unless anyone can misuse this project. Anyone can call at least 10-15 users from any project and make their proposals translation of the week.

If more users can join this discussion, we can find the best solution. --Ugur Basak 01:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea of having 2-3 users, I personally would prefer 4-5, to manage the page is good and receives my support. How about abandoning rule #2 and modifying rule #1 -> "Proposals should only be made on the talk page. They are then to verified within two weeks by the project managers and moved to the candidate page if positive." + new rule #7 "The voting period for articels which experience suspicious voting behaviour may be prolonged to 3 months by the project managers." Best regards --Marbot 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As a first step towards the new rules, can we make a heading last in the article for Newly nominated articles, that is articles according to rule #3? /Johan Jönsson 16:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would rather wait until we have accepted the new rules. --Marbot 18:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

More participation needed!

Hello, I think it is about time to encourage users to propose more translation candidates. Furthermore I would like to see more people voting on the candidates. I will be happy to see the project TOTW regain more momentum. Thank you --Marbot 19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Voting should be easier (no need to reorder) to encourage more people.--Ssola 21:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding a candidate

Where do I propose a new candidate?
This page is too confusing. Should I put my proposal below or above the rest? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.235.28.230 (talk) 02:46, 25. Jan. 2009 (UTC)

Hi IP, we are dealing with grown structures on this page. ;-) Usually new proposals are introduced at the end of the ”Two-thirds majority in favour“-section. Best regards --Marbot 18:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose Flag of Maastricht, so should I just add it to the list? I'm just asking, before I add it and screw up something unintendedly. LightPhoenix 13:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In section When proposing a candidate.. we can insert a model for a new proposal:

=== [[:xx:ARTICLE_NAME]] === 
'''{{TOWCandidates|Support =1|Oppose = 0}}''' 

DESCRIPTION.

'''Support'''
#--~~~~

'''Oppose'''


'''Comment'''

can be a good idea? β₁₆ - (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Automation of Calculation

Hi. I prepared Template:TOWCandidates for automatic support calculation, how about we use it? --Ciphers 12:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a great idea! fr33kman ^{t - c} 22:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Support--Flamelai 07:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--β₁₆ - (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I have replaced all votes with the new template. Thanks for supporting. --Ciphers 04:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Old proposals

Hi. Currently there are 124 proposals for TOTW. 20 of these were inserted more than one year ago. In one year an article can change dramatically. The users who voted a year ago, voted for a version very differt from the actual article. We can add a new rule:

• I a candidate was proposed more then one year ago, you may remove it from the list.

--β₁₆ - (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• removal conditions used now are as follows:

1. If a candidate has more opposing votes than supporting ones after two weeks, you may remove it from the list.
2. If a candidate has no vote other than the nominator after two weeks, you may remove them from the list.
3. If a candidate has an equal number of opposing votes and supporting votes after 3 months, you may remove it from the list.

would you please mention any proposal that can not be removed by the above three conditions? --Ciphers 04:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Template:Suggestion can we make two translations in one week? I will try this in next week.--Flamelai 07:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• I regard the proposed old proposal rule to be unnecessary. Just strictly enforce the existing rules can address these issues.--RekishiEJ 08:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I like proposal of Taichi:

1. No IP votes or proposals.
2. If the candidate has equal support and oppose votes, will be removed in one month.
3. If the candidate has more of 1/3 oppose votes, will be removed in two months.

--Shizhao 15:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Have add rule 2 & 3 --Shizhao 15:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I will try this in next week--Shizhao 15:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Food waste

Hi! I have no idea how new proposals should be made, but I want to nominate en:food waste (sv:matavfall, ja:食品廃材) to be the translation of the week. Can someone do it for me? Tanzania 18:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (I tried. If I did it wrong, feel free to edit..) Tanzania 15:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop new candidates

There are many old candidates should be selected.--Flamelai 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC) I think stop new candidates three months.--Flamelai 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are many English Wikipedia articles which meet TOTW candidates criteria, so I will still add new items to the TOTW candidate list. By the way, we should try to recruit more Wikipedians to participate in the TOTW votes.--RekishiEJ 07:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

 OpposeCan you wait old candidates complete? There are many articles waiting for one year. --Flamelai 15:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a limit on the number of active entries per nominator would be the best? --Boivie 12:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

About "two-thirds majority" section

Some candidates have merely 33.333% support, which seems to fit in the section. However, they are put under "Between 50% and 2/3 support". And candidates which have 50% oppose are put under "50% or more against", which seems to meet the "Between 50% and 2/3 support" definition as well. Tell me, if a candidate has only 1/3 support, which section should it be put under? If a candidate has 50% oppose, then which section shouldit be put under?--RekishiEJ 07:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of them aren't immediately updated. :) That is probably why there is a difference between the two. Ottava Rima

Possible candidate: Ode on a Grecian Urn

Wikipedia:Ode on a Grecian Urn is a featured article with only a page on the Italian wiki. It is 45k, but the critical response and the last paragraph of the lead could be removed (bumping it down to about 28k). Does anyone think this would be a decent nomination? Ottava Rima 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we remove references section the article is not long, and the lead excellently summarises the rest. However, I truly consider John Keats's 1819 odes more suitable to be TOTW since it is more important and has no other language editions.--RekishiEJ 23:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That would work too, as it summarizes most of the poems. However, it should probably be improved first so there is a good edition to translate over. I just noticed that some of those FAs had very little in terms of translation. Its a shame. (but many other languages probably wouldn't care about English literature :) ) Ottava Rima 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

John Keats's 1819 odes is C-rated, and in English Wikipedia C-class means general quality. In fact many past TOTWs are start-rated. In my opinion start-rated means low quality, though some start-class articles were once featured on the DYK template.--RekishiEJ 09:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I guess it would be good enough. Ottava Rima 15:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

suggest change to Translation of the day

as title. Since many requests available.--Flamelai 02:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Maybe is better select two articles for week. This measure maybe dynamize the project. --Taichi - (あ！) 09:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

good suggestion. How to run it?--Flamelai 09:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that every week we take the two best candidates in vote results for translation, instead one. Simply. --Taichi - (あ！) 21:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we start at next week?--Flamelai 07:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose. For me, in this moment, there are too many candidates for TOTW, but choose two articles in a week maybe can be a problem for small wikies, which have few users. β₁₆ - (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here as example. The winner this week is en:False consensus effect / ja:偽の合意効果 and en:IEC 60906-1/de:IEC 60906-1/it:IEC 60906-1/pt:IEC 60906-1--Flamelai 01:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

One of major reason to change is the article waiting for one or more year to vote.--Flamelai 01:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

new notes

NOTE:DONT ADD ANY ENTRIES IF CANDIDATES OVER THEN 200 注意：如果提名條目已達200條，請不要再加上任何條目

I have launch the limit of article entry, prevent candidates wait too much long time. One of Chinese Wikipedian add too many candidate, also noted at Chinese. --Flamelai 02:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Support--Shizhao 07:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot?

It it possible to make a bot that updates Mall:Veckoöversättning on SVWP and the other Wikipedia language versions automatically once a week if the corresponding template have been updated here at meta? This would be greatly appreciated. Obelix 19:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There's one at simplewiki, I think- but I'm not sure how exactly that works. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 08:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Are candidates proposed by anonymous users valid? And votes?

I feel they shouldn't, but I ask an opinion to all of you. In the eventuality they shouldn't be valid, I suggest to edit the description at the beginning. Torne 15:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't agree with you more. Candidates should be proposed by registered users.--RekishiEJ 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@RekishiEJ, what about voting? @other people: come on, more opinions, don't be shy :). Torne 15:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, voting should be done by only registered users.--RekishiEJ 19:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

per --Shizhao 02:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And registered users shouldn't have more than 10 nominated articles in the list at the same time. Boivie 09:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think this restriction is completely unnecessary, since the candidate list only has less than 200 candidates. Besides, there are still many English Wikipedia articles worthy of being TOTWs. By the way, one IP user add a candidate to the list, from the doctrine "candidates proposed by anonymous users invalid", that candidate was invalid and thus should be removed.--RekishiEJ 14:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is important to let many more users be involved in the nominating process, and let them nominate articles that they think are good candidates, while at the same time reducing the number of entries drastically. There are way too many entries right now. Boivie 16:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If IP votes are allowed, this would make it easy to vote several times. I could vote when logged in, log out to vote again as IP, go to a different computer to vote a third time with another IP, and so on. Proposing candidates per se is not a problem to me; only, they would start at zero votes instead of one, since the proposer's vote won't count. (Stefan2 17:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC))

I fully agree with Stefan2. Everyone should be able to propose candidates, but not counted as votes (without even giving reasons at all to support or oppose).

In addition, if IP votes aren’t counted and a voter votes with 2 or 3 accounts (not at the same time, but perhaps with some weeks inbetween), then he can alone be the reason that translation candidates will not be taken, also after years of support from others. So, when do accounts count that give no reason for opposing (or supporting) at all? If IP votes don’t count, then there should at least be some kind of eligibility check. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter at all, if IP votes count or not. There are two ways to check consensus: to check eligibility according to some kind of eligibility system or just giving good reasons and not counting at all, but just checking the reasons and see, if there is a consensus or not. But the system here seems to mix both systems. But if it doesn’t matter, if people vote with more than one account, then IP votes can also be counted. Then it should be looked after the reasons instead of just the count of votes. --Geitost ^diskusjon 14:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

w:May Overthrow

I would like to suggest one article that I think it is really important for world history, but I don't know may I (is it already more than 200 articles) and where I should new candidates (under section with 0 net support?). -- Bojan  Talk  05:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Over entries

Please save to another place. For example your user sandbox.--Flamelai 07:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Candidates with 1 positive vote in group 3?

This is nonsense: An article with 1 positive vote without negative votes is in group 5 (and it can stay two weeks without being removed). If it receives a negative vote (that is supposed bad) goes to group 3? and besides, it "is rewarded" : it can stay for one month without being removed?--Macondo (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this can be a problem: I think the best thing to do is to extend the waiting time of group 5 to one month. --Tn4196 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's best that they stay in group 5 (new candidates) while only having one positive vote, regardless of whether they receive a negative vote or more. Although your proposal could also be considered. --Macondo (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

BEIC authors

(Moved from the main page)
I propose a series of classics of world culture and others, which I nicknamed "BEIC authors" (see for criteria of inclusion). The following authors have an article on one Wikipedia or more and a Wikidata item, but are missing on at least one "big" Wikipedia. Moreover, the BEIC digital library has basic bio info and at least the scan of one work, which can be linked and used as source. So they should be easy and interesting to translate; I hope some are interesting for you too. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your proposal is to change the essence of this project.

"La meta è quella di avere un ampio raggio di articoli presenti in tutte le lingue presenti nel progetto". "The goal is to have a wide range of topics covered in every language that we have". You propose that we focus on biographies of European people. But this project should cover many subjects, and not only focus on biographies.

Your project is interesting but it is very different from this project. --Macondo (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to propose rule changes at all. I said "classics of world culture", there is no specific focus on Europe. As explained in d:Wikidata:BEIC#BEIC_authors it's a work in progress and (as can be seen on the website for each person) not all of those authors are world classics. Voters can give higher priority to global figures, of course.

I understand we need more than biographies, but there are many other non-biographic proposals so there's no risk. Moreover, the persons were selected for being prominent in their fields: Ancient Greek and Latin, Middle Ages, law, economics, philosophy, literature, history, maths, medicine, sciences, religion and travels. So the biographies in question are usually very suitable for the requirement "3) lead to potential translation of other topics", i.e. the things they studied. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 07:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand. Why do you say that you do not propose to change the rules? I think so. You change the orientation of the whole project, in major respects, I explain in detail:
1) Your candidates are all biographies. Currently you have proposed 166 biographies (100%) and 0 articles on other topics (0%). I believe that the project should not change its current orientation (un ampio raggio di articoli). Biographies should be a maximum of 10% to maintain diversity in the topics (at most!). Now there are a total 172 biographies and 206 candidates (83%).
Furthermore, in this project we can have a maximum of 200 candidates, for reasons of operability. 10% of biographies would be a maximum of 20 biographies, we need to remove some 152 candidates, if we maintain the diversity of topics.
2) Almost all biographies (99% or more) that you propose are European (I only found an American. No Asian, no African, etc)
3) Also, I think you propose create a specific BEIC section within the project...? --Macondo (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Besides ... you have not stopped to think ... that if you propose 166 candidates, since the maximum number of candidates with whom we work are 200 ... No one can propose candidates? --Macondo (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

1) Is the 10 % rule written somewhere?

2) I've not counted, frankly. Science and humanities are international, does it really matter where a chemist or mathematician was born? I think you're seeing a symptom rather than the underlying problem: there is currently a "bias" in the fields (listed above), because other fields have not been completed yet; and in the short era considered, mostly a couple millennia during which only some areas of the world gave the best of their own history. However, it seems to me that they're important fields of knowledge to cover; they can certainly have a part in this project, according to its stated rules.

3) I added a section just to avoid pasting my comment 150+ times in the "comments" parameter of the template; you moved it here, I assume it's fine.

4) There's plenty of room for new candidates, as far as I can see; if we approach the limit I'll gladly remove some of mine, but I hope we manage to examine them instead. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

1) "The goal is to have a wide range of topics covered in every language that we have". From my point of view, 85% of biographies is incompatible with have a wide range of topics. (I wrote that 10%, but surely I've exceeded and should be less than 3%, exaggerating much.)

2) I do not share your opinion about that "mostly a couple millennia during which only some areas of the world gave the best of their own history". That's your view, surely as you live in the West you think these atrocities. If you were Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Persian or any other country probably think different ... That's the problem.

3) ok.

4) The limit was set long ago, in 200 candidates, and now it is exceeded. It's too much for one review in a week or 15 days many candidates (166 plus other). (well, I think it is an abuse on your part). --Macondo (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Template and positive votes

The template used for the TOTW is counting only the last positive vote to determine the time since the last vote but it's wrong because the rules write generically only of the last vote; I think that it will have to be corrected in order to reflect correctly the TOTW rules. --Gce (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

too many?

@Gce: Is there any consensus for "too many" translations? If so, how about to add "# of edition"(less than 5? 10?) at requirements? -- ChongDae (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Less than 11 as the requirement.--RekishiEJ (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know it; the limit of 7 editions is a personal opinion. --Gce (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

About the candidates I recently restored

Some of them had gotten removed more than one year before I restored them, so the templates used on these candidates which were transcluded on the page would tell users that they can be removed, but users should wait at least three months to judge whether to remove them or not to give people time to vote.--RekishiEJ (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Last support / last vote

@Gce: In the Template:TOTW-candidate you must write the date of last support, not the date of last vote. Otherwise, if a candidate gets a new oppose vote every day, it will never be delete. --Holapaco77 (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there decided by consensus? Where? Read what I wrote in this discussion page last year, so far nowhere is decided what you are ordering me to do (removing rules spek about all votes, not only positive votes). --Gce (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)