Usator:Synthebot/archive/00016

00016

Creating improper mutual link

At 17:57 11 August 2007 (UTC), Synthebot made a mutual link between 婚前交渉 and Fornication, but these two words are not equivalent. I think Synthebot worked improperly. --219.106.188.244 13:10, 12 augusto 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation. Perhaps in your opinion, "婚前交渉" should be translated as "premarital sex" and not to "fornication". If that is the case, I agree that they are different. However, this possible wrong translation was given by wikipedians and not by the bot. Please, take a look of this edit where it is clear that some contributor added the word "Fornication" in Simple English. Once this kind of edits are done, bots will find it and add the missing entries.

I will delete the incoming interwiki links to the Japanese page. Please, change the Japanese page deleting the wrong interwiki links and adding the correct ones. Thank you. Regards, --Julian (disc.) 14:53, 12 augusto 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've overlooked the possibility that bots duplicate the "Simple English" link to create "English" link.

By the way, Is there any possibility that when Synthebot sees two mutual links between ja:婚前交渉 & fr:Fornication and between fr:Fornication & en:Fornication, then, it may create the mutual link between ja:婚前交渉 & en:Fornication?

If that is the case, it would be a nightmare.

I know that ja:婚前交渉 shouldn't be linked to en:Fornication. But, I can't tell whether it is wrong or not to link ja:婚前交渉 and fr:Fornication. I don't have any sense of French.

All day, I hesitated about what to do with Foxxxxxx links to French or many other languages.

zh:婚前性行為 might be good with ja:婚前交渉. But zh:婚前性行為 has a link to en:Fornication, too ....

Thank you for your cooperation, any way. --219.106.188.244 16:38, 13 augusto 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. The transitive behavior you described is exactly the expected for an interwiki bot. Many contributors know the translation of a word to another language, but they do not know to all of them. Thus, bots try to unify meanings among languages. Unfortunately, there is a little loss of accuracy. Word meanings have shades that are lost when translating into other languages. However, this problem is usually considered less important than having an approximate translation of a word.

Regarding en:Fornication, this is a word from Latin origin. It probably has a similar meaning in other Romance languages, like es:Fornicación, fr:Fornication, it:Fornicazione, pt:Fornicação. My suggestion is to rename the Japanese page as the precise translation of en:Fornication into Japanese. After that, it is possible to do a section for "婚前交渉" inside this page. The final step is adding the interwiki link to the Japanese page in en:Fornication and wait some days. The bots will take this link and add all the interwiki links into the Japanese page.

I hope you find it useful. Thank you for collaborating with the translations. Regards, --Julian (disc.) 17:34, 13 augusto 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the suggestion can't be taken. Because there is no Japanese word in use for precise (or even approximate) translation of fornication. Japanese custom and religion and culture hasn't needed the notion of fornication. Of course there are many Japanese words for the translation of Adultery. But Adultery and Premarital sex have been quite different matters for Japanese.

Every culture has its own uniqueness. And a language can't be separated from the culture.

Do you think every language must follow the English or Latin languages? Do you think every wikipedian must obey the decision made in English version?

Must This decision be the absolute imperative all over the world, regardless of the diversity of cultures?

For me, it seems that Synthebot is now forcing this idea. What do you think? Thanks. --219.106.188.244 01:11, 14 augusto 2007 (UTC)

Synthebot, just like any other interwiki bot, copies the translations given by contributors. Nothing is forced for the page ja:婚前交渉 from any wikipedia (English or others). The page will not have any interwiki link until some contributor (a person, not a bot) makes an edit with the interwiki link.

Have in mind that the merge usually does not mean that both terms are equal (and all the cultural problems behind). Instead, it means that both can be shown together in a more comprehensive (not necessarily good) article. Of course, it is always possible to poll a separation of the article in the discussion page. As you can see there, many people will support this.

Thank you for expressing your opinion. Regards, --Julian (disc.) 02:33, 14 augusto 2007 (UTC)