User:Aotake/Archive

Welcome to Betawiki!
Hi Aotake. Welcome to Betawiki. Before you can use Special:Translate, please request translator rights at Translators. Please create a user page on which you describe which language(s) you will be working on.

Once you have started translating, please remember to often request a commit of your translation work at Translating:Tasks. This makes the number of changes easier to handle for the devs.

I wish you a productive and pleasant stay. Cheers! Spacebirdy 21:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

23 translators and Japanese still in pretty bad shape
Hi. I am writing a nosy note to all Japanese translator. This is because I see that 23 users have got translator rights for Japanese, and the Japanese localisation for almost all of the products we have at Betawiki is still in quite an awful shape. I am wondering if you have any ideas why this could be? We usually see here that a locale can be flourishing when only a handful of translators are working on it, or even just one or two. If you think I can help out somewhere, please let me know. I would also urge you to take responsibility, and make an effort you raise the completeness and quality of the Japanese localisation for the products that we have here. You can talk with your fellow Japanese translators on Portal_talk:Ja, and general support requests can be asked on Support. I hope to see many contributions and/or ideas by you soon. Cheers! Siebrand 16:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

節からセクションへの変更
[&limit=6&target=Aotake この辺りの編集]ですが、どこかで提案や議論を経た上でのものでしょうか？ そうでなければ、どのような意図によるものか教えていただけないでしょうか？ --Hisagi 14:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 議論は経ていません. 変更の理由はシステムメッセージ中で section に対する訳語が混在している状態の改善です. 私が編集した時点で、少なくとも betawiki の翻訳対象メッセージ中では「節」が6件、「セクション」が4件使用されていました. 数では「節」の方が多かったとも言えますが、mediawiki の機能名としてセクションの方が汎用性が高いのではないかと考えたこと、wikimedia metawki のヘルプでの訳語がセクションとなっていたことなどを鑑みて、セクションの方に統一を図りました. --Aotake 23:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleting messages unused in MediaWiki trunk
Hi. Why is it you remove messages that are no longer used in trunk (but may still be used in branched versions)? Those pages are not in the way, history should be preserved for backports, and it takes you time to sort things out, which could most probably be better spent translating. If you really think there is a valid reason for removing them, please let me know, because I've not yet read a convincing reason anywhere yet. Cheers! Siebrand 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if what I did was not very good. I am active at Japanese Wikipedia and now we are trying to sort out the system messages there (there are many translated locally and being in the way of the update made here). Mizusumashi, who is working together, was running a script to find out the status of each message by checking the messages in betawiki, and I found the remnants of old messages give misleading results and therefore thought of deleting them (for us to find whether a message is used or not or when it was outdated is quite a work). Regarding messages such as welcome and sandbox, I just thought, since the parent page was deleted, it makes sense to delete the subpages as well. --Aotake 00:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If by 'parent page' you mean 'MediaWiki:X' for 'MediaWiki:X/langcode' that is not really important. Parent pages can exist for extensions in i18n files that are not loaded, so that they are not visible, or only in a file, because it has not been customised. It is also possible that a message is deprecated in a current version of a software product, but is still used in an older branched version. In general, my advice would be to not ever delete translation pages here without an urgent reason, because it takes time to select deletion candidates, and time to actually delete them; time which is better spent on the primary process we facilitate: interface translation. If ever we would decide to get rid of cruft, we would choose a more automated way. Cheers! Siebrand 09:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Then could you kindly state in a place easy to find that old messages should remain as they are? I did not know deleting them was against the custom, for I found in the deletion log cases that seem similar with mine. Actually mizusumashi, probably stimulated by my action, proposed to delete all of these unused messages with /ja, but I will tell him that we should not. If deletion is not an appropriate way of clarifying that the message is long removed, I guess I can write such information in the /qqq pages, can't I?
 * I know how a "paret page" works here, but thank you for taking your time to explain it. What I meant earlier was that regarding the messages such as MediaWiki:Sandbox, which was created locally for the sidebar of betawiki but never was in the trunc (as far as I can find), if the parent page was deleted, it makes sense for me to delete the subpages as well. I understand this is not the issue I should bring out here, but in jawp, I am spending hours finding weather a local MediaWiki-namespace page that does not appear in the Special:Allmessages is something locally created or a remnant of an old system message, and if locally created, weather its name is appropriate. For example, in jawp we have a local message named MediaWiki:Contact, which is also used in an extension that is not installed in wikimedia wikis, and we may have to think of moving the local message in jawp. On the other hand, someone in jawp recently created a message named MediaWiki:Sandbox, and though the message with the same name exists in betawiki, this was a remnant of local sidebar menu. So I thought deleting the subpages of MediaWiki:Sandbox will help avoiding a confusion, but I may have been wrong. Thank you for your time. --Aotake 13:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We can provide a list of all known message keys, if that is the information you seek. – Nike 18:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Captcha-badlogin/ja関連について
見出しの通りですが、MediaWiki:Captcha-badlogin/ja関連の訳について「答」とされていたところを「答え」とさせていただきました. できればその理由を教えていただけないでしょうか?(私は最初は脱字かとおもいましたが、数が多かったので質問させていただきました. 「質問に答える形」にあたると判断したので、「答え」と修正させていただきました. )--Hosiryuhosi 13:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ああ、確かに答えは送るのが本則で、省くのは許容でしたね. 個人的に名詞はなるべく送らないのを好んでいるため、つい送らない形をとってしまいました. 失礼しました. --Aotake 14:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ご回答ありがとうございました. そのため、送り仮名を送らないものが多かったのですね. 私としては、全体の文面で判断しますので、今回は送り仮名をつけました. --Hosiryuhosi 15:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)