Help talk:Extension:Translate/Translation example

Edit summaries

 * ''For people using the old interface (current as of February/March 2013)

Usually there is no need to add a summary if you are making a new translation, unless you want to clarify some decisions you made in terminology or formatting. When changing existing translations it's polite to mention "Fixed a spelling error" or "Use term X consistently" and so on, to help other translators understand and improve collaboration.

Tone unclear
Right at the top: "The effects will be permanent, so if you don't want to learn how to use it, please stop reading now."

Is this meant humorously? If so, it's the very last place to use a jocular device. I read it three times with knotted brows, wondering what on earth it means. What will potential translators from disparate cultures make of it? Or is it meant seriously, and I'm not getting it? Tony  (talk)  06:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's humorous but also factual, so I don't see what's the problem. It's consistent with the tone of this set of help pages and I also disagree in general that humour doesn't belong to help pages. --Nemo 06:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

2) [//www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Help%3AExtension%3ATranslate%2FTranslation_example&diff=705601&oldid=705099 of the edit summary] should have been "removing irrelevant statement" but VisualEditor refused to accept further text after I tried to select text of the edit summary. I don't see any reason adding this irrelevant sentence (one expects that a tutorial/documentation is written in such a way that one will able to use the tool afterwards) directly after claiming that "We have a lot of work to do". -- Rillke (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. How is having a lot of work inconsistent? The reason is simple, docs should be a bit light-hearted. --Nemo 15:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your humour is subjective. I just felt annoyed by it. If I want to read humour, I am going to read de:Belletristik ("fiction" would be a fuzzy translation). I also do not agree with your edit summary. The removal was explained and well-justified. Where on MediaWiki, I can ask for a second opinion? -- Rillke (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)