Hoi, The only relevant local localisations are the ones that provide specific information about that project. All the other localisations are suspect because they often no longer reflect the original message. Regularly messages change their text, add parameters, are using new internationalisation features and without the FUZZY mechanism employed at translatewiki.net there is no way that you are even aware of this.
Local localisations do not deserve consideration and the only reason why they should not have been removed and outlawed is that we do not have a mechanism yet to bring you new localisations in a timely manner. When the LocalisationUpdate extension is finally activated for all the wikis of the Wikimedia Foundation there is no longer a valid reason to localise locally for standard messages.
Translatewiki.net allows you to proof read your localisations, so I urge you to work on the quality of your localisations and do it where this effort makes the biggest difference. Thanks, GerardM
2009/8/21 Kaare Olsen kaare@nightcall.dk
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 06:32:47 +0200 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Given that on Februari first 96.07% of the most used messages were localised, it is clear that some of the most used messages were not even localised. Consequently your puh puh reaction that only the rare messages are affected is not correct.
Does your statistics include local translations? No?
Again, I'm an actual user of the Danish language Wikipedia. I'm not making it up when I say that I rarely run into something untranslated. If I do run into something untranslated, I generally fix it, and this most commonly happens locally as I can't wait for the translations to arrive by other means (and yes, I know the delay is not your fault).
-- Regards, Kaare
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l