Hello.
As a few people may know, the Green Screen of Death multilingual error message on Wikimedia is my baby. Since it's now 2 years old, and since several people had dissed its javascript etc, I recently started re-coding it and adding several languages.
I have spoken with so many kind, friendly Wikipedians who speak other languages, and they have been incredibly helpful to me by providing translations and putting up with my incessant popping into their IRC questions to ask silly questions in English.
Anyway, after almost a couple of months, I finally have all the translations together. I would now like people who are fluent in these languages to proof-read the messages, and mark them in the table on this page as checked:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_error_messages/Draft
Additionally, some of the languages there need some links to be inserted.
Thanks for your time. Any help that people can give me in this by doing this proof-reading will be rewarded with warm thank-yous and WikiLove.
~Mark Ryan
Mark: You has made a very good job. I have a question: Spanish message uses two verbal conjugations: colloquial and polite. What must be remain? (Wikimedia Foundation's projects is Spanish use colloquil forms).
Bye. Roberto.
2007/9/10, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com:
Hello.
As a few people may know, the Green Screen of Death multilingual error message on Wikimedia is my baby. Since it's now 2 years old, and since several people had dissed its javascript etc, I recently started re-coding it and adding several languages.
I have spoken with so many kind, friendly Wikipedians who speak other languages, and they have been incredibly helpful to me by providing translations and putting up with my incessant popping into their IRC questions to ask silly questions in English.
Anyway, after almost a couple of months, I finally have all the translations together. I would now like people who are fluent in these languages to proof-read the messages, and mark them in the table on this page as checked:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_error_messages/Draft
Additionally, some of the languages there need some links to be inserted.
Thanks for your time. Any help that people can give me in this by doing this proof-reading will be rewarded with warm thank-yous and WikiLove.
~Mark Ryan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 10/09/2007, Roberto Bahamonde Andrade chilotin@gmail.com wrote:
Mark: You has made a very good job. I have a question: Spanish message uses two verbal conjugations: colloquial and polite. What must be remain? (Wikimedia Foundation's projects is Spanish use colloquil forms).
Bye. Roberto.
I'm sorry about that. I cut and changed bits of translations done by several people over the years, and I expected for there to be non-agreement of verbs in this way. As for what should be used, I guess whatever you would use on the Main Page of your language's Wikipedia would be the one to go with. So long as it all agrees :)
In another matter, I asked people to translate "Wikimedia Foundation" for the page heading and also within the text (e.g. "Wikimédia" in French). But Britty has informed me that, when we're working with Latin-scripted languages, we are highly encouraged to use the English form "Wikimedia Foundation" and not translate it at all. Should I ask people to go through the translations and change them to read "Wikimedia Foundation", change it myself (which is troublesome because some languages surround English text with special quote characters) or leave it?
~Mark Ryan
Mark: Based on what Roberto says, the Spanish version should follow the colloquial form, just because the Wikimedia project already uses that form. In general terms, I prefer to use the formal form, because it connotes "seriousness" and "politeness," specially in projects like Wikipedia. On the other matter, Is some strong reason why to keep "Wikimedia Foundation" instead of translating it? ---Rodolfo
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Roberto Bahamonde Andrade chilotin@gmail.com wrote:
Mark: You has made a very good job. I have a question: Spanish message uses two verbal conjugations: colloquial and polite. What must be remain? (Wikimedia Foundation's projects is Spanish use colloquil forms).
Bye. Roberto.
I'm sorry about that. I cut and changed bits of translations done by several people over the years, and I expected for there to be non-agreement of verbs in this way. As for what should be used, I guess whatever you would use on the Main Page of your language's Wikipedia would be the one to go with. So long as it all agrees :)
In another matter, I asked people to translate "Wikimedia Foundation" for the page heading and also within the text (e.g. "Wikimédia" in French). But Britty has informed me that, when we're working with Latin-scripted languages, we are highly encouraged to use the English form "Wikimedia Foundation" and not translate it at all. Should I ask people to go through the translations and change them to read "Wikimedia Foundation", change it myself (which is troublesome because some languages surround English text with special quote characters) or leave it?
~Mark Ryan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
The Chinese translation does not include any mention of IRC. Is there a #wikipedia-zh channel?
2007/9/10, Rodolfo M Vega rmvega@cs.cmu.edu:
Mark: Based on what Roberto says, the Spanish version should follow the colloquial form, just because the Wikimedia project already uses that form. In general terms, I prefer to use the formal form, because it connotes "seriousness" and "politeness," specially in projects like Wikipedia. On the other matter, Is some strong reason why to keep "Wikimedia Foundation" instead of translating it? ---Rodolfo
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Roberto Bahamonde Andrade chilotin@gmail.com wrote:
Mark: You has made a very good job. I have a question: Spanish message uses two verbal conjugations: colloquial and polite. What must be remain? (Wikimedia Foundation's projects is Spanish use colloquil forms).
Bye. Roberto.
I'm sorry about that. I cut and changed bits of translations done by several people over the years, and I expected for there to be non-agreement of verbs in this way. As for what should be used, I guess whatever you would use on the Main Page of your language's Wikipedia would be the one to go with. So long as it all agrees :)
In another matter, I asked people to translate "Wikimedia Foundation" for the page heading and also within the text (e.g. "Wikimédia" in French). But Britty has informed me that, when we're working with Latin-scripted languages, we are highly encouraged to use the English form "Wikimedia Foundation" and not translate it at all. Should I ask people to go through the translations and change them to read "Wikimedia Foundation", change it myself (which is troublesome because some languages surround English text with special quote characters) or leave it?
~Mark Ryan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
It exists, but it's not used and is always empty. They could always join #wikipedia, but that's mostly in English...
On 9/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
The Chinese translation does not include any mention of IRC. Is there a #wikipedia-zh channel?
2007/9/10, Rodolfo M Vega rmvega@cs.cmu.edu:
Mark: Based on what Roberto says, the Spanish version should follow the colloquial form, just because the Wikimedia project already uses that form. In general terms, I prefer to use the formal form, because it connotes "seriousness" and "politeness," specially in projects like Wikipedia. On the other matter, Is some strong reason why to keep "Wikimedia Foundation" instead of translating it? ---Rodolfo
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Roberto Bahamonde Andrade chilotin@gmail.com wrote:
Mark: You has made a very good job. I have a question: Spanish message uses two verbal conjugations:
colloquial
and polite. What must be remain? (Wikimedia Foundation's projects is
Spanish
use colloquil forms).
Bye. Roberto.
I'm sorry about that. I cut and changed bits of translations done by several people over the years, and I expected for there to be non-agreement of verbs in this way. As for what should be used, I guess whatever you would use on the Main Page of your language's Wikipedia would be the one to go with. So long as it all agrees :)
In another matter, I asked people to translate "Wikimedia Foundation" for the page heading and also within the text (e.g. "Wikimédia" in French). But Britty has informed me that, when we're working with Latin-scripted languages, we are highly encouraged to use the English form "Wikimedia Foundation" and not translate it at all. Should I ask people to go through the translations and change them to read "Wikimedia Foundation", change it myself (which is troublesome because some languages surround English text with special quote characters) or leave it?
~Mark Ryan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
P.S. Tor is banned on Freenode.
2007/9/11, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com:
It exists, but it's not used and is always empty. They could always join #wikipedia, but that's mostly in English...
On 9/10/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
The Chinese translation does not include any mention of IRC. Is there a #wikipedia-zh channel?
2007/9/10, Rodolfo M Vega rmvega@cs.cmu.edu:
Mark: Based on what Roberto says, the Spanish version should follow the colloquial form, just because the Wikimedia project already uses that form. In general terms, I prefer to use the formal form, because it connotes "seriousness" and "politeness," specially in projects like Wikipedia. On the other matter, Is some strong reason why to keep "Wikimedia Foundation" instead of translating it? ---Rodolfo
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Roberto Bahamonde Andrade chilotin@gmail.com wrote:
Mark: You has made a very good job. I have a question: Spanish message uses two verbal conjugations:
colloquial
and polite. What must be remain? (Wikimedia Foundation's projects is
Spanish
use colloquil forms).
Bye. Roberto.
I'm sorry about that. I cut and changed bits of translations done by several people over the years, and I expected for there to be non-agreement of verbs in this way. As for what should be used, I guess whatever you would use on the Main Page of your language's Wikipedia would be the one to go with. So long as it all agrees :)
In another matter, I asked people to translate "Wikimedia Foundation" for the page heading and also within the text (e.g. "Wikimédia" in French). But Britty has informed me that, when we're working with Latin-scripted languages, we are highly encouraged to use the English form "Wikimedia Foundation" and not translate it at all. Should I ask people to go through the translations and change them to read "Wikimedia Foundation", change it myself (which is troublesome because some languages surround English text with special quote characters) or leave it?
~Mark Ryan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 11/09/2007, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Tor is banned on Freenode.
Is there some other IRC network that is used by our Chinese Wiki contributors?
~Mark Ryan
On 9/10/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/2007, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Tor is banned on Freenode.
Is there some other IRC network that is used by our Chinese Wiki contributors?
I think Skype is used instead. http://tinyurl.com/3xwnxk has a section near the end with information on various skype channels used for Wikipedia chat.
Angela
If only Chinese could edit Wikipedia with Skype...
2007/9/11, Angela beesley@gmail.com:
On 9/10/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/2007, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
P.S. Tor is banned on Freenode.
Is there some other IRC network that is used by our Chinese Wiki contributors?
I think Skype is used instead. http://tinyurl.com/3xwnxk has a section near the end with information on various skype channels used for Wikipedia chat.
Angela
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Chinese wiki contributors use Skype and Google Group for discussions. They do not use any IRC network because IRC is not popular amount Chinese people.
If you mean Mainland Chinese people, they could edit Wikipedia via TOR and discuss on Skype.
Ted (Hsiang-Tai)
From: J.L.W.S. The Special One
If only Chinese could edit Wikipedia with Skype...
2007/9/11, Angela beesley@gmail.com:
On 9/10/07, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/2007, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com
wrote:
P.S. Tor is banned on Freenode.
Is there some other IRC network that is used by our Chinese Wiki
contributors?
I think Skype is used instead. http://tinyurl.com/3xwnxk has a section near the end with information on various skype channels used for Wikipedia chat.
Angela
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 11/09/2007, Ted (Hsiang-Tai) Chien hsiangtai.chien@gmail.com wrote:
Chinese wiki contributors use Skype and Google Group for discussions. They do not use any IRC network because IRC is not popular amount Chinese people.
If there is somewhere useful we could direct Chinese wiki contributors in a downtime, please add it in to the translations there :)
~Mark Ryan
Ted, no, they can't edit Wikipedia through TOR. Wikipedia does not allow editing through TOR and other open proxies. That's why Baidu Baike is flourishing.
2007/9/11, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com:
On 11/09/2007, Ted (Hsiang-Tai) Chien hsiangtai.chien@gmail.com wrote:
Chinese wiki contributors use Skype and Google Group for discussions. They do not use any IRC network because IRC is not popular amount Chinese people.
If there is somewhere useful we could direct Chinese wiki contributors in a downtime, please add it in to the translations there :)
~Mark Ryan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi,
It only applies to en.wp. They can use TOR and open proxies to edit zh.wp and zh.wn. I have several friends in China do that every day.
Best regards, Ted (Hsiang-Tai)
From: J.L.W.S. The Special One
Ted, no, they can't edit Wikipedia through TOR. Wikipedia does not allow editing through TOR and other open proxies. That's why Baidu Baike is flourishing.
2007/9/11, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com:
On 11/09/2007, Ted (Hsiang-Tai) Chien hsiangtai.chien@gmail.com
wrote:
Chinese wiki contributors use Skype and Google Group for discussions.
They
do not use any IRC network because IRC is not popular amount Chinese
people.
If there is somewhere useful we could direct Chinese wiki contributors in a downtime, please add it in to the translations there :)
~Mark Ryan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I see.
"No open proxies" (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies) is a "Meta"-policy, which means that it applies to all Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. Fortunately, the admins on the Chinese Wikipedia do not enforce this Meta-policy.
This Meta-policy discriminates against the Chinese (and those in countries where Wikipedia is censored/blocked by the government) and should be abolished.
2007/9/11, Ted (Hsiang-Tai) Chien hsiangtai.chien@gmail.com:
Hi,
It only applies to en.wp. They can use TOR and open proxies to edit zh.wp and zh.wn. I have several friends in China do that every day.
Best regards, Ted (Hsiang-Tai)
From: J.L.W.S. The Special One
Ted, no, they can't edit Wikipedia through TOR. Wikipedia does not allow editing through TOR and other open proxies. That's why Baidu Baike is flourishing.
2007/9/11, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com:
On 11/09/2007, Ted (Hsiang-Tai) Chien hsiangtai.chien@gmail.com
wrote:
Chinese wiki contributors use Skype and Google Group for discussions.
They
do not use any IRC network because IRC is not popular amount Chinese
people.
If there is somewhere useful we could direct Chinese wiki contributors in a downtime, please add it in to the translations there :)
~Mark Ryan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 11/09/2007, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
I see.
"No open proxies" (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies) is a "Meta"-policy, which means that it applies to all Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. Fortunately, the admins on the Chinese Wikipedia do not enforce this Meta-policy.
"While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." - they are allowed to use tor
"They are allowed to use Tor"? How can they, if Wikipedia hard-blocks Tor proxies?
2007/9/11, Vee vee.be.me@gmail.com:
On 11/09/2007, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
I see.
"No open proxies" (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies) is a "Meta"-policy, which means that it applies to all Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. Fortunately, the admins on the Chinese Wikipedia do not enforce this Meta-policy.
"While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked." - they are allowed to use tor _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 12/09/2007, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
"They are allowed to use Tor"? How can they, if Wikipedia hard-blocks Tor proxies?
From what I've read, Wikipedia isn't always fully successful at
blocking all tor proxies. The attitude seems to be "if you need to use a proxy, and you manage to, good for you".
~Mark
On 12/09/2007, Mark Ryan ultrablue@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/09/2007, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
"They are allowed to use Tor"? How can they, if Wikipedia hard-blocks Tor proxies?
From what I've read, Wikipedia isn't always fully successful at blocking all tor proxies. The attitude seems to be "if you need to use a proxy, and you manage to, good for you".
~Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Yah that's pretty much how it is. You can use them if/when you find unblocked proxies (there are quite a few afaik) and no one will hold it against you... but yeah it's not exactly an open-arms welcome
On 9/11/07, J.L.W.S. The Special One hildanknight@gmail.com wrote:
I see.
"No open proxies" (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/No_open_proxies) is a "Meta"-policy, which means that it applies to all Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. Fortunately, the admins on the Chinese Wikipedia do not enforce this Meta-policy.
This Meta-policy discriminates against the Chinese (and those in countries where Wikipedia is censored/blocked by the government) and should be abolished.
What's a "meta" policy? The restriction on open proxies is not a Foundation policy that must be enforced on all projects: there's never been a board resolution or other official action about it. It's just one many communities have chosen to adopt (and may, also, choose not to adopt), and so it is written on meta for reference by many projects.
-Kat
2007/9/11, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org:
What's a "meta" policy? The restriction on open proxies is not a Foundation policy that must be enforced on all projects: there's never been a board resolution or other official action about it. It's just one many communities have chosen to adopt (and may, also, choose not to adopt), and so it is written on meta for reference by many projects.
Well, I have heard differently. Here some comments made during discussions about the blocking of open proxies on Dutch Wikipedia:
"I hate to bitch but: het blokkeren van open proxies is foundation policy. Mi dus niet iets waar "wij" (lees de lokale community) iets over te zeggen hebben."
transl.: "I had to bitch but: blocking open proxies is foundation policy. In my opinion therefore not something where "we" (read: the local community) have a say in."
"het blokkeren van OP's is formeel beleid op alle Wikimediaprojecten"
transl.: "Blocking open proxies is formal policy on all Wikimedia projects"
On 9/12/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/9/11, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org:
What's a "meta" policy? The restriction on open proxies is not a Foundation policy that must be enforced on all projects [...]
Well, I have heard differently. [...]
That people are mistaken about Foundation policies vs. simply commonly-adopted policies isn't really all that surprising.
-Matt
On 9/12/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/9/11, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org:
What's a "meta" policy? The restriction on open proxies is not a Foundation policy that must be enforced on all projects: there's never been a board resolution or other official action about it. It's just one many communities have chosen to adopt (and may, also, choose not to adopt), and so it is written on meta for reference by many projects.
Well, I have heard differently. Here some comments made during discussions about the blocking of open proxies on Dutch Wikipedia:
"I hate to bitch but: het blokkeren van open proxies is foundation policy. Mi dus niet iets waar "wij" (lees de lokale community) iets over te zeggen hebben."
transl.: "I had to bitch but: blocking open proxies is foundation policy. In my opinion therefore not something where "we" (read: the local community) have a say in."
"het blokkeren van OP's is formeel beleid op alle Wikimediaprojecten"
transl.: "Blocking open proxies is formal policy on all Wikimedia projects"
They're wrong. :-)
It may be a popular policy, but it's up to individual projects. (And I think that where it is implemented, it's very much a sad compromise to keep back the flow of crap and abuse that comes along with the legitimate uses, rather than something all projects should do on principle.)
-Kat
I have read similar comments in discussions about this policy on the English Wikipedia.
The "No open proxies" page on Meta should clarify whether this is Foundation policy or not.
2007/9/12, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
2007/9/11, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org:
What's a "meta" policy? The restriction on open proxies is not a Foundation policy that must be enforced on all projects: there's never been a board resolution or other official action about it. It's just one many communities have chosen to adopt (and may, also, choose not to adopt), and so it is written on meta for reference by many projects.
Well, I have heard differently. Here some comments made during discussions about the blocking of open proxies on Dutch Wikipedia:
"I hate to bitch but: het blokkeren van open proxies is foundation policy. Mi dus niet iets waar "wij" (lees de lokale community) iets over te zeggen hebben."
transl.: "I had to bitch but: blocking open proxies is foundation policy. In my opinion therefore not something where "we" (read: the local community) have a say in."
"het blokkeren van OP's is formeel beleid op alle Wikimediaprojecten"
transl.: "Blocking open proxies is formal policy on all Wikimedia projects"
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
J.L.W.S. The Special One wrote:
Ted, no, they can't edit Wikipedia through TOR. Wikipedia does not allow editing through TOR and other open proxies. That's why Baidu Baike is flourishing.
Baidu Baike is flourishing because you don't need Tor to edit it. And because it shows up in Baidu, the most popular search engine in China.
There are no IP addresses currently blocked on the Chinese Wikipedia with "Tor" in the reason field (as opposed to 887 on the English Wikipedia). A spot check of 6 Tor exit nodes showed that none of them were blocked on zh. Open proxies may be blocked occasionally on the Chinese Wikipedia due to vandalism, but they certainly don't have a policy of blanket blocks.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out why a heavily-promoted, searchable, locally-run site with equivalent content is more popular than a foreign one that requires secret and probably illegal methods to access it.
-- Tim Starling
Mark Ryan wrote:
Hello.
As a few people may know, the Green Screen of Death multilingual error message on Wikimedia is my baby. Since it's now 2 years old, and since several people had dissed its javascript etc, I recently started re-coding it and adding several languages.
I have spoken with so many kind, friendly Wikipedians who speak other languages, and they have been incredibly helpful to me by providing translations and putting up with my incessant popping into their IRC questions to ask silly questions in English.
Anyway, after almost a couple of months, I finally have all the translations together. I would now like people who are fluent in these languages to proof-read the messages, and mark them in the table on this page as checked:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_error_messages/Draft
Additionally, some of the languages there need some links to be inserted.
Thanks for your time. Any help that people can give me in this by doing this proof-reading will be rewarded with warm thank-yous and WikiLove.
~Mark Ryan
The word donate links to wikimediafoundation.org Will that page be available under the circunstances under which the message is shown? (eg. s3 goes down)
Also, all translations link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reload Not only it's not localised, but the page is a disambiguation which doesn't explain _how_ to reload a page (which is the only utility i see to link that page) The same concern for being to a internal page applies.
Finally, this message use to have a Donation form at the botton. Can it be translated, too?
PS: Roberto & Rodolfo, i updated the es: translation.
On 11/09/2007, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
The word donate links to wikimediafoundation.org Will that page be available under the circunstances under which the message is shown? (eg. s3 goes down)
Maybe, maybe not :) Quite often this error message is transitory and the site is accessible again by the time you hit 'refresh'. Ideally, the foundation server would be isolated from the others, but that's more a matter for the developers.
Someone once tried putting a donation form in the error message file itself; it's not there now so I can only assume it wasn't judged to be a good idea.
Also, all translations link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reload Not only it's not localised, but the page is a disambiguation which doesn't explain _how_ to reload a page (which is the only utility i see to link that page) The same concern for being to a internal page applies.
I only put that link to the "Reload" article there for the purposes of illustrating what would happen when you actually hit that link :) Which would be to link to the current URL, or, if Javascript is available (which is most cases), perform a page refresh (thus, hopefully, forcing browsers to give anyone who got the error message on saving a page the option to re-submit the information).
Finally, this message use to have a Donation form at the botton. Can it be translated, too?
As I said above, it's not in the currently live version of the error message, so I don't know why it was removed. If we were to include it, of course, it could be translated. But I think that would add so much text to the error message beyond what has already added to it by putting in an extra 12 or so languages as I have done. With the current text, the message is 45KB.
~Mark Ryan
Mark Ryan wrote:
On 11/09/2007, Platonides wrote:
The word donate links to wikimediafoundation.org Will that page be available under the circunstances under which the message is shown? (eg. s3 goes down)
Maybe, maybe not :) Quite often this error message is transitory and the site is accessible again by the time you hit 'refresh'. Ideally, the foundation server would be isolated from the others, but that's more a matter for the developers.
I know. Would only be unavailable on big problems. Nonetheless, I have seen the devs pestering on irc "Why do we link on an error message to a place we know won't be available when the message shows". I wanted to bring this up.
Maybe we should point to a static foundationwiki copy on the toolserver? It's easy to do and unaffected by pmtpa errors.
Someone once tried putting a donation form in the error message file itself; it's not there now so I can only assume it wasn't judged to be a good idea.
/me removes the donation section query. I think it was added to overcome the "The links to donate don't work".
Also, all translations link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reload Not only it's not localised, but the page is a disambiguation which doesn't explain _how_ to reload a page (which is the only utility i see to link that page) The same concern for being to a internal page applies.
I only put that link to the "Reload" article there for the purposes of illustrating what would happen when you actually hit that link :) Which would be to link to the current URL, or, if Javascript is available (which is most cases), perform a page refresh (thus, hopefully, forcing browsers to give anyone who got the error message on saving a page the option to re-submit the information).
That explains it. I have added a note to the page on meta. Thanks
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org