Implicating poorly_translated -> translated.
Reason: It may be poorly translated, but is translated.
Updated by user 361013
Posted under General
Implicating poorly_translated -> translated.
Reason: It may be poorly translated, but is translated.
Updated by user 361013
A shitty translation is worse than no translation at all. I would rather leave poorly_translated alone and not taint the translated tag with it.
Hillside_Moose said:
A shitty translation is worse than no translation at all. I would rather leave poorly_translated alone and not taint the translated tag with it.
This.
That's not what they are saying. They are saying that poorly_translated should not implicate translated, because people searching under translated are not going to want to see the kind of stuff translated that badly.
If someone did use a direct automatic translation that spit out garbage then, the idea here would be either to remove translated, and add poorly_translated and check_translation, or to keep translated and fix or re-translate the thing yourself.
For poorly translated hard translations the poorly_translated tag is probably the best we can do.
I always thought translated implied "perfect translation", or something like that. I, personally, think it would be a very bad idea listing poor translations under that tag.
The "translation" tags
translated
partially_translated
check_translation
poorly_translated
online_translator_translated
novice_translated
pro_translated
...
Ya you get the idea.
KISS
translated
partially_translated
check_translation
Those 3 cover everything including the poorly_translated tag.
check_translation implies said translation is not perfect and does cover the concept of poorly_translated.
So I vote to actually remove the poorly_translated tag as it is superfluous.
The main reason to keep poorly_translated, is for cases where the source material isn't available. This is the case with most hard_translations. In this case and thus the translation cannot be checked, so that tag wouldn't make sense or be helpful. For this reason, I would be against eliminating poorly_translated altogether.
The one reason poorly_translated could potentially be of use to soft translations, is that it may call greater attention to them. Many check_translations are 99% there with the exception of a single word, or due to clumsy phrasing. A truly poorly_translated post would likely need more attention than that.
That said, restricting poorly_translated usage to places where the source material is not available, and instead simply using check_translation alone on poor soft translations would be acceptable to me.
@Michael Fesser:
Also, I know your list above is meant to be facetious, but that level of subjective granularity is obviously bad in any context here.
Shinjidude said:
The main reason to keep poorly_translated, is for cases where the source material isn't available. This is the case with most hard_translations. In this case and thus the translation cannot be checked, so that tag wouldn't make sense or be helpful. For this reason, I would be against eliminating poorly_translated altogether.
Good point.
@Michael Fesser:
Also, I know your list above is meant to be facetious, but that level of subjective granularity is obviously bad in any context here.
It was intended to be rather extreme.
Also it was more aimed at the idea of a tag not being a candidate for association with another tag because it is "not good enough" as opposed to being completely unrelated.
I just made various "levels" of translation tag "quality" to show again the extreme result of that sort of view.
Rolling two concepts together into one satirical response is not the best idea.