Misplaced Pages

Talk:Translation: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:59, 30 August 2007 editMaxschmelling (talk | contribs)1,594 edits →New Article: []← Previous edit Revision as of 16:48, 31 August 2007 edit undoMaxschmelling (talk | contribs)1,594 edits →New Article: []Next edit →
Line 398: Line 398:


:A subsection on Translation Quality is probably a good idea. I do think that the Fidelity vs Transparency conversation belongs in the article. It is a separate issue. It has a long academic history and so I have put that text back in, but with a less provocative title. One hopes. ] 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC) :A subsection on Translation Quality is probably a good idea. I do think that the Fidelity vs Transparency conversation belongs in the article. It is a separate issue. It has a long academic history and so I have put that text back in, but with a less provocative title. One hopes. ] 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree Translators' liabilities should be the heading for Fidelity & Transparency and Equivalence. You have to understand that much of the scholarship on translation is not based on translation as a business transaction, but rather translation as an artistic endeavor. If a translation is not contractually undertaken for a "client", no liability exists. I am willing to work with you to include a section on liability and quality measurement, but you need to listen to the views of other editors and to respond rationally. Remember, this is supposed to be an article about translation, about what translation is. ] 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:48, 31 August 2007

Misplaced Pages and translation

  • Misplaced Pages Translation — project to aid translation of articles in foreign Wikipedias into English. Sign up at it: "... How little we really know of how much we fail."

Apogr 19:01, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Problems in/caused by translation (into Hungarian) Translation may also be deemed to be a mental process whereby on the input of a text in L1 you produce an output in L2, usually in writing. The process takes place under several constraints, such as to the purpose, time available, the translator's knowledge, the tools used and the format and media of the text, etc. If the idea is to produce, as a result of the translation process, a mutation of the original text (usually fiction) by complying with the rules of retaining the original format or genre, you create a piece of translation that is recognised as a works of art on its own rights. Therefore, such translations are a subject of literary criticism, rather than seeing it as an information technology product that may be judged on the grounds of properly delivering a particular code/message in terms of accuracy, timeliness, completeness, reliability and authenticity. Most translations from English concern announcements, news and reports on facts, policies, novelties and innovations that may not have their equivalent wording readily available in the target language and thus they have to be created on an ad hoc basis. Since the totality of translation works is done in an unsystematic and uncoordinated fashion, despite various modern CAT tools that emphasise the importance of shared glossaries and dictionaries, the resulting condition is that L2, the target language is going through an unwanted and uneven transformation in terms of spelling, vocabulary, grammar and usage. Translation business in Hungary is up for grab and the works may be done by numerous, linguistically unqualified people who may not be aware of the problems of non-compliance with the rules of their native tongue. This may be understood better, if you consider that translation is not a listed profession in the Hungarian DOT, and localisation is another sign of not taking the issue seriously. In localisation the efforts made to sell the product abroad dominate the process, making self-defensive linguistic considerations thereby a low priority only.

comment

see also translation memory, comment. Good editing job done! thank you: originator apogr


insert: localisation has been with us for a long time. It refelects the basic fact that translation is done under a number of constraints, some of which are difficult to resolve. Remember that the titles of movie films, the tranlation of poems, etc. are all examples of localisation, whereas the translation of software components, including on-screen instructions, user manuals, program specifications, etc., pose new constraints due to the economy on space of writing in the source language and the cut on the occurence of repeated phrases.

In contrast to the original defintion and wording of the concept of translation above, I am more inclined to describe this activity at the highest level of abstraction as an activity akin to copying, an other important and universal operation, with the difference that here the resulting copy deemed to be equivalent to the original has no resemblance to the original, yet believed to be equivalent for use in lieu of the source (primarily text) on the agreement by people that have sufficient insigth into and undersatnding of the universes of both languages. Apogr 09:31, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

" Computer and video games usually have Japanese as the source language and English as the target language." seems to be pretty centered around english speakers. It seems likely to me, that more people play computer games translated from English than from Japanase. Generally I think that sentence doesn't belong there -- Fuqnbastard 14:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

miscellaneous

This strikes me as needlessly snarky:

the translation of literary works, which are characterized by more "artistic" pretensions

A friend who is an interpreter for the deaf educated me regarding a subtle problem with this phrasing:

a distinction is made between translation, where both the source and target texts are written

Because there can be sign-language translations of taped performances, which are in turn taped, he prefers "fixed text to fixed text" for translation.

Disambiguation Requested

I came here looking for Translation (geometry) (or Translate (geometry), which redirects to Translation (geometry)), the geometric act of moving vectors across a plane (or higher dimensional space) without changing any of their other properties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.205.200.21 (talk • contribs) .

A link to Translation (geometry) is available on the Translation (disambiguation) page. It was listed as Translation (mathematics) but is now clearly identified. — Grstain | Talk 15:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I should be more precise. In most cases I've seen on WP, any ambiguous word or phrase redirects to its disambiguation page. Translation links directly to the currently unspecified (languages) definition. I was requesting it link to Translation (disambiguation) much the way Scaling links to its own disambiguation page.

placement of reference to fan translation

I found "fan translation" listed under the "see also" under "Translation of religious texts". I suspect that was a mistake, perhaps an artifact of an earlier version of the page.

I wasn't sure where to put it, though, so I just stuck it under the main "see also" heading, since, as far as I know, no one really considers video games to be "religious texts" (although, come to think of it, I know some people who might appreciate the irony). --] 17:13, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Removed Links

I have removed the following links as they are in my opinion redundant (be bold!). My reasons are listed. If you think the reasoning is invalid or irrelevant then by all means re-instate the link, but I would appreciate if you could justify it here... --HappyDog 01:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Translation Services — A portal for translators and people looking for resources in translation.
    This is advertising, and not relevant to the article.
  • The Altavista Babelfish, online machine translation software
    This is one of the links in 'list of on-line translation resources'
  • Google language tools
    One of the items on the page is a translator, but we already have a list of on-line translators. Rest of page is Google-specific (e.g. view site in other languages)
  • Open Source translation tools for South African languages
    This doesn't seem relevant, particularly on an English language site.
  • Translation Dictionaries
    A hard-to-navigate site that has no instructions. I don't think we should link here even if it's relevant. Too confusing.
  • Online dictionary of English and 7 other European and Asian languages
    Seems too specific to include in the article. This is one of the borderline cases though. At the moment it might be useful, but a list of on-line dictionaries would be better and fairer.

The following links I have left. I have included them below, along with my reasoning.

Untranslatable words

It's rather disingenuous to fall back on word borrowing in an attempt to show that difficult-to-translate words can often be easily translated. The article additionally seems to have forgotten the criteria it set in the previous section, namely fidelity and transparency — pâté de foie gras meets neither of these. The argument that this is better than "inflamed liver paste" is a strawman: nobody would present the latter as an accurate translation. --] 01:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also wonder why it was translated as "inflamed", which seems to have little to do with either the product or the French name. I have changed it to "fat liver paste", in the hopes that someone later will try to fit in better with the explanation. I do think it's useful, however, to indicate that the names of typically foreign items are usually not translated. Lesgles 18:03, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)


Translation associations

Is there any need of listing all translation and interpreting associations, even from non-English speaking countries? If that's the case, then look at this link! Regards --Adriano 19:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Separation

This article really needs to be split into translation and translator. Right now, both topics are handled here. Scriberius 16:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! --Cultural Freedom talk 07:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Noted translators?

The list of noted translators is so skewed and full of holes, I wonder if there is any use having this section. What are the criteria for listing people here? Real contributions? Recognition in the field? Or the whims of contributors? For instance, I have nothing against Nancy Andrew, but what is the justification for having the translator of one very recent work of Japanese fiction in the list, but none of the other greats in that field (except for Arthur Waley, who I myself added)? What about such great past translators of Russian literature like Constance Garnett? I am sure that one could keep adding people to the list, but in the end, what is the point of a raggedy list of translators with no guiding principle on who should be in it? Surely it would be better to simply have a link to the List of translators, or perhaps the Category:Translators to English (bad enough as that is) or other relevant categories. I really feel that this is an area in which Misplaced Pages definitely does not excel! Unless a better way can be found to come up with a decent (if not authoritative) list, would it not be better to leave this kind of list out? Bathrobe 04:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Though I am not sure that Constance Garnett qualifies as a *great* translator, she probably is notable. More to the point, you are right about the arbitrariness of this list. It does belong more to an article on translator(s) as has been suggested elsewhere in this discussion page.Maxschmelling 02:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I propose that the "Noted translators" section of the "Translation" article be removed and set up as a separate "List of noted translators."
To be sure, there is already a "List of translators," but it is organized differently and is not user-friendly to someone who may want to locate a particular translator.
Nihil novi 03:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Pursuant to above discussion, I have deleted the "Translation" article's "Noted translators" section. Anyone is, of course, free to resurrect it as a separate "List of noted translators" and link it to the "Translation" article. Nihil novi 21:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam?

Are many of the things that 24.149.57.49 is adding linkspam? I ask sincerely, I'm not quite able to judge. Thanks, --Cultural Freedom talk :26 (UTC)

And then there's Drkpp --Cultural Freedom talk :33 (UTC)

Translation vs. interpreting

I'm not sure that the oft-repeated definitions are adequate — ie. that both refer to a transfer of meaning between two languages, but translation refers to written forms and interpreting to spoken forms. It seems to me that the essence of the difference is time, not mode. Interpreting is delivered "live", while translators have the time to deliberate, consult, revise, etc.

I'll give a couple of examples to illustrate: a team of translators have a 1-minute recording of a speech, and are given one day to produce an equivalent recording in another language. This may happen between two sign languages which have no written form. It seems to me that this is best understood as translation, not interpreting. Conversely, an interpreter may be simultaneously interpreting a video-recorded presentation, when a few words of text momentarily appear on-screen, which the interpreter interprets.

There are a number of other scenarios that make me question the above definition (written vs. spoken/signed). I had a go at distinguishing interpreting and translation on the interpreting article, if anyone wants to have a look. Anyone aware of academic discussion of these issues? It would be good to tighten the definitions here. ntennis 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As a sign interpreter explained it to me, sign translation and sign interpretation are two different things. Sign-interpreting is live. He defined sign-translating as going from "fixed text to fixed text" (that has a nice, official-sounding ring to it), eg, a written English text to a videotaped signing performance (or vice-versa). Likewise, working off a tape in one language to produce a written text is translation, not interpreting. As a rule of thumb, if you have a chance to hide your mistakes, it's translating. adamrice 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Translating from English in Misplaced Pages

I would like to know how to translate a page in Misplaced Pages, from English to another language, say, the 'Redox' article. If I create a new page, named Redox, it already exists and I don't know where to specify the language in which I write. Could somebody give me an advice? Thank you.

First, looking at the "redox" article, it already exists in many other languages. If the language you want to translate it into is already there, have a look at it and see if you can improve it with new information from the English article. If it's a language not listed there--for example, Norwegian--it's possible the article really does exist at no.wikipedia.org, but hasn't been linked from the English yet. Look for it on the target-language wikipedia site and then link to it in the English Redox article. If it really does not exist, then go to the target-language site and create a new article there. Link it back to the English Redox article, and edit the English Redox article to link to it (and, if you are ambitious, the French one, the German one, etc). When editing a Misplaced Pages article, links to the equivalent article in other-language wikipedias always appear at the very end, in the form ] (links to English) or ] (links to German). Also, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. adamrice 20:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Target language: redirect

Why does "target language" redirect to translation? Studying or speaking in a second language doesn't always necessarily have to do with translation. The two are hardly synonymous. Roehl Sybing 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


I just tried to find an article on target language and was re-directed here. I do not make the connection. Perhaps target is a technical term for translators, but target language is also the L2 or other language being learnt by a group of learners. A bad re-direct I think is.219.166.179.99 08:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC) I should have signed in.DDD DDD 08:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Faux amis

Anyone up to adding a section on faux amis (false friends/cognates)?--Gilabrand 10:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

In German the german word "Gift" in english means posion
See the False friend article and the List of false friends. —Grstain | Talk 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Good, I linked the page to False Friends.

--Gilabrand 19:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

"Consequently, as has been recognized at least since the time of the translator Martin Luther, one translates best into the language that one knows best." While I tend to agree, this is still an opinion rather than a fact. In practice professional translations are not always done by native speakers of the target language. So I am removing this phrase unless somebody wishes to qualify it or at least source it. Lfh 16:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, there is even more material in here that is in desperate need of citation or qualification. The following assertions cannot be left to stand unsourced:
"Many newcomers to translation erroneously believe it to be an exact science, and mistakenly assume that firmly-defined one-to-one correlations exist between words and phrases in different languages ... They assume that all that is needed in order to translate a text is to encode and decode between languages, using a translation dictionary as the codebook." (Citing one single instance is not enough.)
"Most translators will agree that the situation depends on the nature of the text being translated."
"The industry expects interpreters to be more than 80% accurate; that is to say that interpretation is an approximate version of the original. Translations should be over 99% accurate, by contrast."
"In fact, in general, translators' knowledge of the target language is more important, and needs to be deeper, than their knowledge of the source language. For this reason, most translators translate into a language of which they are native speakers."
Also, the sentence:
"If translation be an art, it is no easy one."
not only lacks meaningful content but also reads like it was written in the 16th century! Lfh 11:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Process

I feel the "decode/re-encode" paradigm is a wee bit too jargonny. Could these terms be replaced with understand and retell? Decode is actually problematic since there is no neutral medium outside of language (the code) to decode the text into before re-coding into another language. Maxschmelling 20:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Why don't you give it a try? User:nihil novi, 8 July 2007.

Trying to come up with an alternative, I thought, why is this section there at all. It seems to belong more rightly to the machine translation section (where it also appears). In fact, the 'misconceptions' section higher on the page lists thinking it is possible to simply decode and encode as a translation misconception. Would the Translation entry suffer without the "process"?Maxschmelling 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. The "The process" section may be deleted with no loss of substantive information, and with a positive gain in clarity. Nihil novi 04:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed "The process". A stub entitled "Translation Process" still exists and is referenced in the article on machine translation. Translation is still awfully long, but I think it's better/clearer now.Maxschmelling 23:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Measuring success"

It seems to me inappropriate to be introducing massive, indigestible, bureaucratese citations from one specific translation manual ("The European quality standard EN-15038:2006"), "referring to 'causa finalis' (WHAT)', as the higher-ranking legal contractual principle and base objective for the detail specification of a project work package...."

"WHAT," indeed, does this gobbledygook mean? And not every translator translates for the sake of a "legal contractual principle."

I suggest, rather, that what useful substance there is in all this be summarized encyclopedia-style, with inline citation of the source. It is much too early into the article to be introducing massive citations from one specific translation manual, without even an introduction to justify it.

Compare the August 17, 2007, 20:57, version of "Measuring success" with the version as of August 12, 04:28.

Nihil novi 16:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)



The ranking of Purpose and Fidelity of a translation are the 2 valid principles to determine translation success. This is the issue. Several international standards have determined this to be relevant for the quality assurance of translation services.

EN-15038:2006 is an empirical and valid fact. It is inappropriate to cut it out without indulging into the links and their content.

The previous DIN 2345 was replaced by this standard. DIN 2345 contained the same reference to the Purpose of a translation, nothing new.

Where was the previous Standard DIN 2345 published here? Where is ASTM F Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation?

This article needs serious updating.

Significant 2cd generation developments need to be exposed.

Here are tons of deductive justification:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.176.107.133 (talk) 23:14:35, August 18, 2007 (UTC)


I suggest you consider doing the usual thing in Misplaced Pages: write articles about EN-15038:2006, DIN 2345 and ASTM F Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation, and provide links to them in the "Translation" article — not dump a lot of undigested, apparently verbatim bureaucratese into the "Translation" article. Nihil novi 00:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


I suggest that this article needs to be seriously re-structured with new tree branches to include all standards mentioned before the content comes.
This also includes the restructuring of this subchapter to include the very significant differentiation between causa finalis and causa efficiens, which was properly and significantly verified as factual. I dissent to the notion that translations are only governed by the self-purpose principle causa efficiens. This is also the intended focus of the standardization organizations.
Tree references to the sub-branches quality management etc. AND translation are a must and significant for an up-to-date description of translation. There is no need to exclude factual information from a structural viewpoint. My content sizes to each tree branch relate and fit to the proportions made under other tree branches, and are definitely not dumps. Continuous improvement is a principle of Misplaced Pages, and also of the quality principle Kaizen. Please update yourself on these conceptions. May I add some more deductive material to support this:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.176.107.133 (talk) 00:34:11, August 19, 2007 (UTC)


Since continuous improvement (aka kaizen) is a principle of every rational human endeavor, why bring it up in the article on translation? Nihil novi 07:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Because it links to the basic terms you need to know, in order to orientate yourself with quality management, and how quality management implements to translations. Thus, building the motivation to create "translation quality standards" from the very beginning. An understanding of the industrial history in this direction helps to understand the significant impact it is having to translation as an international quality standard. The list of translation problems in this article delivers material for continuous improvement from a quality management viewpoint. It is not a law of nature to leave these issues untouched, and accept the un-quality costs incurred by these problems. The greater the list of translation problems, the greater the need of kaizen and translation quality standards. The translation problem list is indeed an excellent starting point for translation quality management. This is a very valuable contribution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.137.69 (talk) 08:05:17, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
This article is about "translation," not merely "industrial translation," whatever that means. Dragging, into an early part of this article, "European quality standard EN-15038:2006," which (you state in the following section of this discussion page) "is effective for all 23 European languages within the European Union as of August 1, 2006..." is inappropriate, if only because the European Union represents merely 0.5 billion of Earth's 6.5 billion human inhabitants. Nihil novi 08:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It is certainly appropriate. What about the USA version (ASTM F Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation) that has been published?
What about it? Nihil novi 09:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The USA population of translators is also faced with quality management. If I look at my search machine, I furthermore discover that China is now interested in ISO 9001 and EN-15038:2006. This article needs serious restructuring and content updating. Your competencies have proven to be inappropriately updated. At least a decade of furthering development within the translation environment has not reached you yet. Psychological resistance to these issues is not appropriate. The Chinese have passed you already.
China EN-15038:2006
The underlying conceptions are definitely spreading out, as the uprise of the Japanese industry has proven in other areas of life due to quality management, profit and non-profit.
You are trying to bend the reality of things in order to support un-quality. There is enough raw data about quality management to make it applicable to translations, e.g. ISO 9001 quality management for services.
I would, once again, encourage you to write Misplaced Pages articles about EN-15038:2006, DIN 2345 and ASTM F Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation, and provide links to them in the "Translation" article. If these "translation standards" that you keep mentioning are as important as you say, they deserve their own articles. Nihil novi 09:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I would again encourage you to accept the structural tree changes to this article. They are valid and relevant.
ISO 9001 Translation
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.137.69 (talk) 09:17:55, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "structural tree changes to this article"? Nihil novi 09:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This comes from the XML corner. XML defines structure and content in the form of a tree-like composition (see also Mindmap). Just understand Table of Contents at this point, if you are not acquainted with XML. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.137.69 (talk) 10:46:31, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
Really, what has all this business management mumbo-jumbo to do with the essence of translation? I can see that you are interested in business, but have you ever successfully translated a book for publication? Do you think that a competent translator needs this business jargon in order to translate? Or that business types going through their "procedures" can guarantee a decent translation? What are needed are competent soldiers, and you keep going on about medals ("ISO 9001 service quality certification is would truely be the ultimate goal of a translator"). Nihil novi 12:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The majority of translators work for money and live a competitive environment. The list of translation problems in this article points at potentials for quality improvement. For those who do not want to change, i do not really care. It is not my problem. It is also not my problem to argue around about facts actually. All the issues added are fact-based and relate to translation. What is your problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.137.69 (talk) 12:31:01, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
You have not answered my questions. Nor have you provided evidence for a particular relevance of your business models to translation in general. Your business models shed no light on what a translator does or the knowledge and skills he must possess to do competent work. Nihil novi 12:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The required tasks and competencies for translators and other roles, such as project managers, reviewers, revisors, proofreaders, and final verifiers are specified within the standards themselves, see EN-15038:2006. As well as the task relationship of the mentioned roles to the purpose and use of the translation. I think it is time that you read the content of the standard, before I refer to it 100 times, and still not reach you. The according meta lists of raw data are within the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.180.137.69 (talk) 13:52:47, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Problems commonly faced by translators, listed in the article and referred to by you above, have always existed and have always had to be addressed by translators, for millenia before business administration, kaizen, TQM, etc., were identified under their present names.
However, the need for a definite translation quality standard remained, and now it is here. Those are the facts.
I have looked at your "meta lists" and found nothing enlightening.
I will eagerly read your Misplaced Pages article laying out the essentials of EN-15038:2006, when you've written it. Nihil novi 14:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As a cross-cultural QM and TQM trainer since 1994 with experiences in many branches and peoples, with over 600 participants, no sweat... From a padegogic viewpoint, I found the industrial history of the quality management issue to be a good starting point, which is well compiled in the famous 5-year-long MIT study 1990, written by Womack, Jones, Roos. The Machine That Changed the World : The Story of Lean Production. Check out Womack in Amazon.com
And read the quality standard too..
Wow, this is a spirited argument. Would whoever it is who is excited about EN-15038:2006 please sign your posts? I concur with Nihil novi. If translation quality control and its industrial standards are such a big deal they deserve their own article rather than becoming clutter in an article where people come to see what Translation is. I do think there is plenty to write on the subject, both in terms of legislated standards and common practice standards, standards for different types of translation.Maxschmelling 22:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that our anonymous editor has now moved most of the gobbledygook out of the article's early, "Measuring success" section, save for "causa finalis" and "causa efficiens," which are terms more suitable to a philosophy article. Now if (s)he can only drop those terms and give us links to his Misplaced Pages articles on "EN-15038:2006," "DIN 2345" and "ASTM F Standard Guide for Quality Assurance in Translation"...


Nonsense: Purpose (causa finalis) is a central conception of EN-15038:2006 spread out among all roles within the standard. What kind of ignorants took this out? Measuring translation success is not alone goverened by causa efficiens, this is factually false.
May I add this source a second time:
Causa finalis (purpose) is relevant for measuring translation success Aristole. These are the facts.
Learn about continuous improvement kaizen first, before delivering your un-quality remarks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.158.72.185 (talk) 08:32, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, some people must have some grave coping problems with paradigma change, if not even Aristotle is convincing enough.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.158.72.185 (talk) 08:13, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

All the specific points in his "Quality standards" section (as will be clearer, now that I've edited it for English usage) are either irrelevant to an understanding of the translation process, or introduce nothing new. I request that he reduce this section to links to his Misplaced Pages articles on EN-15038:2006, DIN 2345 and ASTM F Standard Guide..., yet to be written. Nihil novi 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"EN-15038:2006"-spam revert

I have reverted the recent massive imports of spam related to "EN-15038:2006." Nihil novi 18:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, EN-15038:2006 is an international standard, not spam. Update yourself please. EN-15038:2006 is effective for all 23 European languages within the European Union as of August 1, 2006, and replaces the previous DIN 2345.

Please see my remarks under "Measuring success," above. Nihil novi 00:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I have added a new section on quality standards for translations, removing the link spam. I'm not quite as familiar with the situation in English-speaking countries as I should be, I guess, so I'd welcome new sections on other relevant standards I missed.--Margit Brause 13:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

unquality?

What on earth is this word "unquality" that someone insists on putting in here? Some new-fangled terminology from business school?? What ever happened to good old words like "poor" or "inferior" quality?--Gilabrand 13:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be a neologism from the anonymous editor who for over a week has kept reinserting ungrammatical and irrelevant or redundant passages and overvalued ideas. Please feel free to revert his versions. Nihil novi 14:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
All the work I did this morning to get this article into shape has been reverted by someone. I guess I'm just wasting my time.--Gilabrand 16:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Translation unquality costs are a problem and result from many sources, just look at the listing of sources. And also consider the Kaizen conception.
Check the meta-list: unquality costs It is a well-known term, you need to update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.173.122.24 (talk) 07:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

"Translation Quality Standards" section

In the course of editing, User:Maxschmelling has raised the question of whether the present "Quality standards" section belongs in the "Translation" article.

If that be a motion to delete the section, I second it. Particularly as it adds nothing to the understanding of the topic of translation and has become a bone of endless reversions. Nihil novi 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I dissent such a motion, because translation is not just positioned in self-purpose. This motion displays a lack of holism, over-emphasis of self-purpose (concisely summarized by Aristotle in the Metaphysics: "The whole is more than the sum of its parts.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.182.52.240 (talk) 08:14, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor. I agree that the purpose of a translation is an important thing to take into account when trying to measure the success of that translation. Translations have many different reasons for being performed and as far as I can tell, that simple sentiment is at the heart of a ridiculous amount of text that you have added. The real issue is how much talk of the bureaucratic standards belong in this wikipedia article. To answer that, I would say: As little as possible. Maxschmelling 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Amen! Nihil novi 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Collaborative and horizontal workflow, even cybernetic, structures are nowadays up-to-date. These are post-beaurocratic. Beaurocratic is a vertical structure, Maybe you should read the content of some links to get updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.83.76 (talk) 03:43, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Since you have so much you want to say about "translation quality standards," why don't you write a separate article about them and link it to "Translation"? That's what we usually do when an aspect of a topic exceeds a certain mass. Nihil novi 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You make yourself ridiculous. There is no mass here. This is mass translation quality standard You want to censor structure and content that doesn't fit into your horizont. Your contribution is psychological resistance against paradigmatic change. You are far away from the generic idea of Misplaced Pages, and your own self-beaurocrat by only finding, bending, and bouncing around on formatting rules to censor structure and content. Example: The reversal of rock-hard answered call-for-citations like this,


The ISO Survey 2005 - http://www.iso.org/ (just enter ISO Survey 2005 to search, and click on the free, abridged version)


Without looking at the nonsense of even positioning a call-for-citation in a fully self-evident text context. Welcome to Absurdistan. This is the article where you should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.83.76 (talk) 08:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
English translation, please? Nihil novi 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


In earlier days, people thought the world was flat, now they know the world is round... paradigmatic change... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.174.83.76 (talk) 16:50, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


Ridiculous is as ridiculous does. Your link to the ISO Survey leads nowhere. You spell bureaucrat wrong and include nonsense words like unquality. Sign your posts.Maxschmelling 17:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


U spel it right, as a good spellchecker, but u are not aware of the content, now check the meta-list: unquality costs It is a well-known term, you need to update.
Now the other one works too...otherwise use this: The ISO Survey 2005


I've gone ahead and deleted the "Quality standards" section in the "Translation" article, in the absence of any comprehensible arguments on the part of its sole, anonymous proponent. Should anyone wish to create a separate article on "Translation quality standards," or individual articles on any of the standards that have been offered to the public, and link them to the "Translation" article, nihil obstat. Nihil novi 21:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Gone ahead?? You have gone fully backwards again now.
Is your hair falling out because of quality management for translations?
This shows that you actually want to censor the issue.
It is better that you work on the Absurdistan article. You are useless here.
You are flatly shielding the reduction potential of unquality costs.
Anyway, your flat world is not flat, it is round if you look at this:  :translation EN-15038:2006
Yet, now you have advanced to become a quality risk...great. There are other ISO tools to remedy this.
Risk Management (ISO/IEC Guide 73)
and many other revealing documents and tools: Risk management in SMEs
user jbhood noted in a revert that this same anonymous character has been blocked from German wikipedia for these same kinds of additions. He/she seems to be blatantly disregarding the consensus view on this article, not responding rationally to other editors, etc, becoming, what is the word, an un-quality factor? Maxschmelling 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This statement does not comply with scientific (deductive and statistical) requirements.
My argumentation is based on the accepted findings of Aristole, International ISO/EN Standards, and
from meta-search-quiries within a search machine that also offers the functionality of document clustering
to enable further categorization of the hits found. The arguments and behaviors presented here from
vandals are unqualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.180.224.113 (talk) 07:50, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
The word "unquality costs" was indeed defined. Censoring vandals (some disquised as administrators)
only deleted it. Formatting issues are being abused to censor structure and content. Just check the
archive. It is also in the section above. A complaint about this has been escalated to Misplaced Pages peers.
Here it is again as meta-list:
unquality costs
Yes, indeed. As new knowledge emerges, old structures become obsolete, and some are gripped in fear about the changes.
Actually, in the old days of Rome, it was usual that the person bringing bad news was put to death.
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.180.224.113 (talk) 08:23, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

New Article: Translation Quality

I propose that the issues of Measuring Translation Success, Translation Problems, and Translation Quality Standards should be structured under a new article called Translation Quality. This is based on the scientific consensus on Translators' Liabilities.

So, I've gone ahead and deleted these sections in this article, in the absence of any comprehensible and qualified arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.180.224.113 (talk) 06:42, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

A subsection on Translation Quality is probably a good idea. I do think that the Fidelity vs Transparency conversation belongs in the article. It is a separate issue. It has a long academic history and so I have put that text back in, but with a less provocative title. One hopes. Maxschmelling 23:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree Translators' liabilities should be the heading for Fidelity & Transparency and Equivalence. You have to understand that much of the scholarship on translation is not based on translation as a business transaction, but rather translation as an artistic endeavor. If a translation is not contractually undertaken for a "client", no liability exists. I am willing to work with you to include a section on liability and quality measurement, but you need to listen to the views of other editors and to respond rationally. Remember, this is supposed to be an article about translation, about what translation is. maxsch 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)