User talk:Margin1522
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
The Signpost: 26 April 2018
- From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again
- Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost
- In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop
- In focus: Admin reports board under criticism
- Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide
- Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias
- Discussion report: The future of portals
- Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History
- Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March
- Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation
- Featured content: Featured content selected by the community
Courtesy PROD notification
The article Mottainai Grandma has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 May 2018
- From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals
- Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals
- Featured content: Featured content selected by the community
- Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics
- News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia
- Traffic report: We love our superheroes
- Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies
- Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues
- Humour: Play with your food
- Gallery: Wine not?
- From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
The Signpost: 24 May 2018
- From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals
- Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals
- Featured content: Featured content selected by the community
- Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics
- News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia
- Traffic report: We love our superheroes
- Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies
- Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues
- Humour: Play with your food
- Gallery: Wine not?
- From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
If it's not COPYVIO, it's OR?
Regarding I've mentioned elsewhere my belief that once you get beyond dates and facts the same thought in different words is a different thought.
I think I've seen this thought expressed elsewhere on-wiki, but usually as a caricature of an opponent's view, not a sincerely held belief by someone who's been accused of close paraphrasing. But I'm curious how you can translate (which your user page says is your profession) if you think changing the words necessarily changes the thoughts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Right, I don't imagine it's a very popular idea. It's what the poets will tell you, but who reads poetry? And yes, I think there is tension between the ban on plagiarism and the ban on OR. The policy acknowledges it. You're supposed to get your ideas from elsewhere, but put them in your own words. Easier said than done, especially once you get past the level of verifiable facts. Which IMO is one reason why 90% of Wikipedia consists of verifiable facts. E.g. our article on Motoori Norinaga. Inadequate on his ideas, although I guess also because that part would be hard regardless.
- About translation, very roughly, at the two poles, you can try to sound natural or try to be faithful. I'm the latter. For example, I also do editing, and when I get a text by a European architect I will check that it's grammatical, intelligible, and accurate. But I don't try to make it sound like a native English speaker. If it sounds a bit strange, that's OK. It should, it was written by a foreigner. Translation is the same. It's the author's voice, not mine.
- Anyway, it's not very often that a word gets the full Wikipedia treatment. But sometimes it does. For example, earlier this week I did a text that had a section about Bernard Rudofsky's distinction between vernacular architecture and what my author called 様式建築. The straightforward translation for that would be "style-architecture". But that term is owned by Hermann Muthesius, in German since 1902 when his book Stilarchitektur und Baukunst was published, and in English since 1994 when a translation appeared. So I downloaded the original and translation (both free) and checked the context of every occurrence to see whether his usage was compatible with Rudofsky and my author's. It was, so I put the word in quotes, mentioned Muthesius in the text, and got permission to add a translator's note citing both editions. I guess if I can do this in a translation I can do it on Wikipedia too, and make Tony and Curly happy.– Margin1522 (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- Right, I don't imagine it's a very popular idea. It's what the poets will tell you, but who reads poetry? And yes, I think there is tension between the ban on plagiarism and the ban on OR. The policy acknowledges it. You're supposed to get your ideas from elsewhere, but put them in your own words. Easier said than done, especially once you get past the level of verifiable facts. Which IMO is one reason why 90% of Wikipedia consists of verifiable facts. E.g. our article on Motoori Norinaga. Inadequate on his ideas, although I guess also because that part would be hard regardless.