Wikidata

Wikidata:Properties for deletion/P9745

< Wikidata:Properties for deletion

Property:P9745 / translation of edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus that this property is useful, and further that is desirable to separate it from edition or translation of (P629). That leaves open the issue of whether the scope of edition or translation of (P629) should be changed. Unfortunately the discussion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books/2021#Formal discussion about translation of (P9745) did not result in a consensus, but I suggest trying again there or at Property talk:P629 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

translation of (P9745): (delete | history | links | entity usage | logs | discussion)

Newly created property that was not created in consultation with the project leading in the subject area. Its creation is premature and does not completely capture the complexity of the subject matter. This should be nullified prior to it being utilised. Wikidata:Property proposal/translation of for creation discussion and my issue with its creation. Properties like this should only be created in clear consultation with the relevant project and it should be checked that the project has been suitably alerted and involved in that discussion prior to any creation of a new property.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete This duplicates the function of edition or translation of (P629), and was created without notifying or consulting Wikidata:WikiProject Books. We found out about this property when it was added to our project page. [1] The "new" property muddies the waters, since there is not always a clear division between editions and translations. A bitext (Q1346592) such as Aspis (The Shield) (Q105703709) is both an edition and a translation at the same time. Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales (Q191663) may be translated from Middle English to modern English. But Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Q43361) was "translated" from UK English into US English and released under a different title. A work in traditional Chinese was be "translated" into simplified Chinese characters. A work in Serbian (Q9299) may be written in Cyrillic script or in Latin script, or be "translated" into Serbo-Croatian (Q9301). There is no clear dividing line between editions and translations, but rather a spectrum of actions where the distinction is clear only at the opposite ends. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: These are just some ideas to solve the problems you mentioned. I'm not mad or heavily defending them.
"A bitext (Q1346592) such as Aspis (The Shield) (Q105703709) is both an edition and a translation at the same time."
Then include both "edition of" and "translation of" statements.
"But Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Q43361) was "translated" from UK English into US English and released under a different title."
This kind of gets me. Why isn't there items for the specific releases of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in the U.S.? Wikiproject Music documents all releases. There might be a lot of releases for a book like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone as it's been printed continuously and in many formats, but it might worth documenting. And in this case, it can also solve the "translated" problem.
"A work in traditional Chinese was be "translated" into simplified Chinese characters."
This would definitely be considered a translation. Wikidata itself has support for Simplified and Traditional Chinese translations.
"A work in Serbian (Q9299) may be written in Cyrillic script or in Latin script, or be "translated" into Serbo-Croatian (Q9301)."
I think this would be considered a translation too?
"There is no clear dividing line between editions and translations, but rather a spectrum of actions where the distinction is clear only at the opposite ends."
It seems pretty clear to me. There's a reason why many other databases have a "transation of" property: it's needed, useful, and identifiable. Lectrician1 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the forum for suggesting alternative approached for Wikiproject:Books. The issue here is that (a) a property was created that duplicates the function of an existing property, and (b) it was created without an input, notification, or the knowledge of the Wikiproject whose project page was then altered. Do you support the duplication of property functions? Do you condone the creation of properties without notifying or consulting established projects who are directly impacted by the new property? The underlying issues can be discussed at Wikidata:WikiProject Books, if you believe you have helpful ideas. The few examples I gave merely illustrate the complexity of this issue goes beyond anything that was discussed in the hasty approval of the property. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Should I start a discussion on WP:Books about the property now, or after it is maybe deleted? Lectrician1 (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could do either. Whether this property remains or is deleted, many of the complexities of this issue will still exist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about the property created: Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books#Formal discussion about translation of (P9745) Lectrician1 (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Wikidata would be better served it was aligned with bibliographic properties used in the cataloging world, where translation is a very different relationship to revision. In FRBR and IFLA LRM, both revision and translation create new derivative expressions. A revised edition of a textbook is quite a different thing to a translation of the textbook, and I think Wikidata ought to have separate properties to describe these relationships. Resource Description and Access (Q1519318), the cataloging standard used predominantly in North America, the U.K., Germany, and other places, has a variety of these properties to differentiate types of relationships between expressions: is translation of; is free translation of; is dubbed version of; is revision of. is translation of "relates an expression to an expression whose language is modified to create a new expression that is different from another expression of the same work." is revision of "relates an expression to an expression that is updated, corrected, or expanded to create a new expression of the same work." UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Merge and delete P629 is good enough for a decade. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep @Liuxinyu970226: This property as discussed clearly serves a purpose for distinguishing which versions of a work are translations of another. When used correctly this property does not replace the usage of edition or translation of (P629). All editions and translations should remain under that property. All translation of (P9745) does is establish a relation statement between fellow versions that would be under has edition or translation (P747) together. This allows for users to distinguish which editions are translations of other editions with a simple statement and not have to user qualifiers on has edition or translation (P747). It also allows for the distinguishment of translations that are based on translations themselves, with all translations and editions being under the same work (see discussion). Clearly this property has a need and necessary in the cataloging of creative works. --Lectrician1 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    P9745 has been reported as having difficult on translations of Asian languages, where P629 doesn't have. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liuxinyu970226: I'm confused by what you mean? edition or translation of (P629) is still supposed to be used for all translations and editions. All translation of (P9745) does is relate what editions are translations of another. Lectrician1 (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lectrician1 I guess that these languages don't have better P9745 translations due to grammar rules, if Yandex, Google or else don't make me shame?
    1. Amharic: የ $1 ትርጉም (then use የ or ትርጉም?)
    2. Armenian: $1- ի թարգմանություն (really "ի թարգմանություն $1-" is okay?)
    3. Azerbaijani: $1 tərcüməsi (I believe they won't agree "tərcüməsi $1")
    4. Basque: $1-ren itzulpena ("-ren itzulpena $1"? hehe)
    5. Bengali: $1 এর অনুবাদ (I don't think "এর অনুবাদ $1" is okay)
    6. Burmese: $1 ဘာသာပြန်ချက် (I don't think "ဘာသာပြန်ချက် $1" is okay)
    7. Chinese: $1的翻译/$1的翻譯 ("的翻译 $1/的翻譯 $1"? lol)
    8. Estonian: $1 tõlge ("tõlge $1" can work?)
    9. Finnish: $1 käännös ("käännös $1" can work?)
    10. Georgian: $1- ის თარგმანი (don't expect "ის თარგმანი $1-" can work)
    11. Gujarati: $1 નું ભાષાંતર (I don't think "નું ભાષાંતર $1" is okay)
    12. Hindi: $1 . का अनुवाद (I don't think "का अनुवाद $1 . " is okay)
    13. Hungarian: $1 fordítása (maybe someone can tell me if "fordítása $1" is okay or not)
    14. Japanese: $1の翻訳 ("の翻訳 $1" would really be nonsense)
    15. Kannada: $1 ಅನುವಾದ (I don't think "ಅನುವಾದ $1" is okay)
    16. Kazakh: $1 аудармасы (I believe they won't agree "аудармасы $1")
    17. Korean: $1 번역 ("번역 $1" can work?)
    18. Kyrgyz: $1 котормосу (I believe they won't agree "котормосу $1")
    19. Lithuanian: $1 vertimas ("vertimas $1" can work?)
    20. Malayalam: $1 വിവർത്തനം (I don't think "വിവർത്തനം $1" is okay)
    21. Marathi: $1 चे भाषांतर (I don't think "चे भाषांतर $1" is okay)
    22. Mongolian: $1 орчуулга (I believe they won't agree "орчуулга $1")
    23. Nepali: $1 को अनुवाद (I don't think "को अनुवाद $1" is okay)
    24. Odia: $1 ର ଅନୁବାଦ (I don't think "ର ଅନୁବାଦ $1" is okay)
    25. Pashto: د $1 ژباړه (As a RTL language, I don't see any reasons "د" or "ژباړه" may just work lonely)
    26. Punjabi: $1 ਦਾ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ (I don't think "ਦਾ ਅਨੁਵਾਦ $1" is okay)
    27. Sindhi: $1 جو ترجمو (As a RTL language, do we think "جو ترجمو $1" may work?)
    28. Sinhalese: $1 පරිවර්තනය (I don't think "පරිවර්තනය $1" is okay)
    29. Tamil: $1 இன் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு (I don't think "இன் மொழிபெயர்ப்பு $1" is okay)
    30. Tatar: $1 тәрҗемәсе (I believe they won't agree "тәрҗемәсе $1")
    31. Telugu: $1 యొక్క అనువాదం (I don't think "యొక్క అనువాదం $1" is okay)
    32. Turkish: $1'un çevirisi (do you have evidences "'un çevirisi $1" may work?)
    33. Turkmen: $1 terjimesi (I believe they won't agree "terjimesi $1")
    34. Urdu: $1 کا ترجمہ (still think "کا ترجمہ $1" may work?)
    35. Uyghur: $1 نىڭ تەرجىمىسى (still think "نىڭ تەرجىمىسى $1" may work?)
    36. Uzbek: $1 tarjimasi (I believe they won't agree "tarjimasi $1")
    (although we even don't think all speakers of them can trust MT tools, we need at least a way to let values shown before these translation words, or do you have other ways to fix them?) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liuxinyu970226: Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Well, how to these languages work with other properties that are named with a noun and the "of"? Why is "translation of" such a barrier grammatically compared to other properties? Lectrician1 (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, these languages can always have such problems on translating property names, just if their English names have the word "of". Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liuxinyu970226: Well if this translation problem for the property is something other properties suffer from, I'm not really sure why it should be a barrier to keeping it. The property serves an important purpose and that's what's important. These translation problems could be worked out through descriptions. Lectrician1 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or probably, we need to discuss the English name "translation of" is proper or not, since this really causes translation difficults for nearly all Turkic, Indic and RTL languages. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete Prematurely created and pretty confusing (note that translated edition is usually a translation of another edition, not the work, sometimes even translation of another translated edition, etc.). --Jklamo (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jklamo: Wait, if you understand how the property works, why are you for deleting it? Lectrician1 (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep This property is now actively used for music, strongly against deleting it. Moving away from old ambiguous properties that require inverse statements is only a good thing imo. Moebeus (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep I am also clearly against a deletion here. I find this property very useful. --Gymnicus (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion/P9745&oldid=1577004081"