english to spanish translation

English to Spanish translation

Aren't there more gaps in the Spanish Wikipedia? Shouldn't there be first an effort to translate English in to Spanish? nroose Talk 19:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The logic was, that on en.wikipedia, there are going to be more people who are fluent in english and have low to medium proficiency in spanish (such as myself), than vice-versa. Ie. more people will be able to read spanish than write spanish. My hope is that this idea spreads, so that all the major wikipedias have a TotW (or maybe even Translation of the day if it really catches on) to all the other major wikipedias. The bellman 00:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

People working on this might also want to look at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Youssefsan/zona_de_trabajo. Although it's in a user space, he welcomes interaction on the page itself, I've probably done more there than Yousef has. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:18, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

meta

unbenownst to me, some other smart fellow had the idea of picking an en:wikipedia article a week and translating it into as many languages as possible. Similar idea as to this, so i thought you all might be interested. meta:Translation_of_the_week The bellman 05:24, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Will someone pick the next one?

Francisco Umbral has been "translation of the week" for 2 weeks, and it's finished. Will someone pick the next one? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:40, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Translation of the week

You guys are doing a great job. You might want to look at m:Translation of the week to get these translations into other languages as well. Danny 05:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's that time again

It's been a week, Eulalio Gutiérrez is done. How about Francisco Hernández de Córdoba, discoverer of Yucatan? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:16, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good — J3ff 09:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm guessing we are due again: Hispania looks pretty darned translated. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:38, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking about Pascual Orozco from es:Pascual Orozco. If there are no objections, I'm going to set it up as translation of the week. — J3ff 00:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's almost been a week again and Pascual Orozco is basically done. Any suggestions for the next article? — J3ff 23:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Francisco Hernández de Córdoba (discoverer of Yucatán)

I`m very proud for the choice of Francisco Hernandez... etc. as the spanish translation of the week. I'll tell all my friends! Please, if you detect any mistake or have any doubt while translating, don't hesitate to ask me about it. It was my intention to try to translate it by myself, but it's a very hard task for a non-native, not even fluent, english speaker. --Vivero 21:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vivero, I hadn't noticed this was yours. Good piece of writing. Undoubtedly you used some sources, but in the Spanish-language version you don't really cite them, beyond giving a general sense that you are relying (at least indirectly) on Bernal Díaz del Castillo. Do you have anything to add to that? And even if you were working directly from Bernal Díaz, can you indicate info about the edition, etc.? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:02, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Mainly/only... Bernal, indeed. He is the only eyewitness source, and also the most comprehensive one. In the article I also mention the letter sent by Veracruz founders to Charles V... but only to show that most contemporaries thought that Hernandez expedition started as a slavery raid. This letter is usually edited in the same book with the "Cartas de Relación" ("Report letters" could be a good translation?) of Hernan Cortes to the emperor, and is often confused with the first letter of Cortés, which unfortunately is lost. Talking about the same question, slavery raid yes or not, I also mention 20th century Cortés biographer Salvador de Madariaga, who wrote that it had nothing to do with slave traffic, and was only devoted to exploration and adventure (but Madariaga tends to be a rather "patriotic" biographer, not very neutral in my opinion). I also mention Diego de Landa's "Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán" (he was a franciscan priest, bishop of Yucatan, devoted to the conversion of the mayas), both for adding another testimony favouring the slavery hipothesis, and for doubting about the funny, but maybe uncertain, etimology Yucatan = I don´t understand you. Concerning the etimology of Yucatan, I also mention Fray Toribio de Benavente, "Motolinia" (another franciscan, but devoted to nahuatl speaking indians, not to mayas), maybe the first person that mentioned the funny story of the name of Yucatan. For writing the article I also re-read (but I didn't mention, if I remember well) my favourite teller (more than historian) of the Conquest of Mexico, the american William H. Prescott (a very interesting man. He deserves a longer biography in wikipedia; but, like Madariaga, he was a bit pro-spaniards)and the mexican biographer of Cortés (the modern one, and maybe one of the bests) Juan Miralles. I will add a.s.a.p. to the es: article the info about edition, ISBN, etc. of this sources; some of them are the same that I already added to the Cuauhtémoc biography (in spanish). Thank you for your suggestion, Jmabel, and please forgive me for my maccaronic english and for delaying the info about books and internet webs (it´s almost midnight in Spain, I have to sleep!) --Vivero 22:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Combined with what you will add in es: I'm sure this will meet our needs. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:55, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I've copied Vivero's remarks to Talk:Francisco Hernández de Córdoba (discoverer of Yucatán). -- Jmabel | Talk 22:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Collaboration

Francisco Hernández... is pretty much done. 3 remaining phrases, I've got questions to Vivero at talk. However, I found that I did about 90% of the work and Vivero did most of the rest. Is anyone actually interested in doing these as collaborative efforts, or has that gone by the wayside? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:47, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, very much, although I didn't get around to participating in this particular translation. I think the project is very worthwhile. -- Ngb 23:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I want to work on these, but my Spanish is limited. Most of the language in the Francisco Hernandez article was above my level. — J3ff 03:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK. Anyone want to pick the next one? It's time. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:31, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's nice to vary the kind of articles we're doing if we can: we've done three biographical articles in a row, so how about we do Football War from es:Guerra de Fútbol? I've made the appropriate changes to the project page. --Ngb 12:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, Football War is done, and it's been getting on for a fortnight since we picked it. Does someone want to choose the next one? --Ngb 15:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• How about Hispania from es:Hispania? As I wrote on the project page, offhand, the Spanish article looks long and not bad. Lots of references listed. The English is a stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:19, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Rene Favaloro

Please notice that es:René Favaloro has strong similarities with Fundación Favaloro homepage. Ejrrjs | What? 01:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was probably a source for the Spanish Wikipedia article. Unless the words are copied verbatim, I wouldn't really worry about it. Regardless, it shouldn't affect us because by translating into English, we are creating our own work. — J3ff 02:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's verbatim, check for yourself. I think that translating copyrighted material is not an option. Ejrrjs | What? 03:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion on Talk:René Favaloro. — J3ff 03:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spanish language request

This forum is full of photographers with large collections of great city specific work. Would anyone mind trying to solicit contributions to the commons? Collection example lots of issues | leave me a message 07:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Glacier: whats going on?

See also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Non-english_in_en:Wikipedia

Glacier now has a pile of spanish text on it. The Glacier article was there, and it wasn't a stub. Whats going on? William M. Connolley 21:15:36, 2005-07-24 (UTC).

I agree, this is a really lame way to proceed. For a stub maybe, but not a real article. Use a temporary page, folks - I'll give y'all a couple days, then delete the remaining Spanish out. Stan 13:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Why are you going to give us "a couple of days?" It's the Spanish Translation of the Week. I assure you that by the end of the week the article will be perfectly cleaned up; we've never failed to have an article completely translated within the given time frame. No offense intended, but I don't see why our entire project should be subject to your unilaterally imposed deadline. Fernando Rizo T/C 15:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • You want to ruin an article for a week? This is ridiculous. The correct way is to make Glacier/Temp or Glacier/Spanish comtaining the full spanish content, put your translations into the main article, and put the translated text in some sort of coloured box on the "spanish" subpage indicating that the section was already translated. r3m0t ^talk 16:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • R3m0t, I spent about an hour yesterday reorganizing that article so that the Spanish text fit under appropriate headings and editing out text so that there would be no overlap between the as-yet-untranslated Spanish sections and the English sections. And you just undid all of that. This is the way that Translation OTW works. If you'd like our methods to change, then let's discuss it like adults and not trample all over each's others efforts. Is the effect of seeing Spanish in the article so damaging that it needed to be removed so drastically before any concensus was reached? Fernando Rizo T/C 17:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I did not undo all of that. I moved out of the main article the spanish text which remained in the article. Your pruning was already done. r3m0t ^talk 09:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Is the effect of seeing Spanish in the article so damaging that it needed to be removed...?" Yes, it is - en: is supposed to be a useful reference work for English-language readers; I don't strew English all over es: and expect Spanish readers to put up with it. Since I was never asked if I agreed with this process, it's more than a bit presumptuous to suggest that I should sit by and put up with it. As other people have noted, there are far less disruptive ways to go about all this, and you guys should have asked before stepping on other people's work. Stan 18:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Stan, your tone says to me that you think we're essentially vandalizing the article by trying to improve it. There is nothing presumptuous about adding content to an article in good faith. At the price of having to scroll past a couple of paragraphs in a foreign language for a couple of days, the Glacier article benefits by having its content almost doubled. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. My problem is that the text was removed from the article with no discussion and no consensus. The translators' job becomes much much more difficult now without context to work with. The substantial effort that I put into the re-organization of the article is undone. I must say that I am frustrated. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I believe we can get past this impasse by recovering the work that's already been done by Fernando Rizo and others (including myself) from this version, putting it into the Glacier/Spanish space, and working on it there, leaving the translated English interspersed with the original Spanish, as per our usual m.o.. Is this acceptable to all? --Skoosh 20:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It has been pointed out [1] that edit history should be preserved, which does not happen when a temp page is deleted. Talk page does not have that problem. (SEWilco 20:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC))

One could move the article to article/foo, manually paste a copy of the pre-move version in the original's place (which will thus lack history, but it's only a temporary), edit on article/foo, then when done, delete article and move article/foo back to article. You'll then have a full history, both old and new edits, and readers will always have a reasonable article to look at. Looking at the past SPATRA efforts, this looks like the first time that the process has been applied to a "basic" article rather than a more specialized topic, so you're likely just getting the attention of more people than previously. Sorry about the frustrations, not uncommon when an obscure WP activity suddenly gets more attention. Stan 21:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• First of all, no hard feelings to anyone involved; I hope I didn't come off as being rude or brusque in any way. If I did, then I apologize. I think Skoosh & Stan's suggestions are pretty good, so consider this a vote in favor of making temp pages. The sticky wicket is going to be the loss of the page history once the temp page gets nuked, but I don't see a way around that at the moment. Another issue is that the articles have historically taken a good three to four days of work to get fully translated, and the temp article that we'll be working from won't relflect any of the edits made to the main article after the creation of the temp page, so the re-inserting of the finished product into the namespace is going to have to be executed carefully to make sure that edits carried out in the intevening time don't get removed. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If the original article has a note at the top saying that a new version is in the works at a temp page, 99.9% of prospective editors will either hold off editing or help work on the temp page. (We even have templates specifically created for that purpose, used by people doing generic rewrites.) I'm not sure why you think the history of the temp page would get nuked - if you move article to temp, then move temp to article when done, the complete history will be carried through the two moves. The pasted-in copy of the article will have "history" of its own, but since it's created by pasting over the redirect newly created by the move, and only exists for a week anyway, there's nothing to preserve. (One could even protect the pasted copy, but I don't think that would ever be necessary.) Stan 05:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think that adding a link to the version of the article before becoming SPATRA in the header could also work.--Tycho 19:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Folks, why don't we dump the Spanish text in the regular article, like we've always done, and just comment it out? Wouldn't that be simpler to everyone? --Titoxd 22:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• • I'd have no big problem with commenting out, although it does make the task harder. I think this is a tempest in a teapot: articles are often in a state of being majorly worked on for a few days. It's not at all uncommon to have "the bits all over the carpet" for a few days, this is just a different form of that than people are generally used to. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:04, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I think the real problem is a limitation of the MediaWiki software. These types of issues make it obvious that we should be able to differentiate between a "consumer", production version of an article and a working, editorial version. There are a multiple reasons why articles should always be maintained in a polished, production state. I think the solution would be a special markup allowing blocks of text to be flagged as "draft". Only users who explicitly change their settings to view draft text (ie, those of us that edit articles) would see this text (and it would be highlighted in some way to distinguish it). This would solve many of these problems, and perhaps provide an ideal method of handling this type of issue. I think this would be extremely useful for many other uses as well (for example, to hide contributions making far-fetched claims until they can be verified, or hiding contributions that have useful information but are poorly written). --Dan East 15:12, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

As Titoxd mentioned above, I feel the best solution is the place the Spanish text within HTML comment tags, hiding the text from readers. The Translation template will be placed on the talk page. This solution is the best because it preserves the history for GDFL, and keeps the article in good condition so readers are not confused.

How does everyone feel about this proposal? If there is a consensus, I will go ahead and implement this solution. — J3ff 01:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Agree. Titoxd's proposal is impressive both in its elegance and simplicity. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for not thinking of that this morning, and we could have saved all of this valuable bile for more important things (like breaking down alcohol). Fernando Rizo T/C 01:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Brilliant. What more can I say? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm flattered. :-) --Titoxd 20:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm reluctant. You can't preview the markup when the text is commented out, and although this is mostly about translation, you still want to pick up on unbalanced quotes and brackets at the time of the edit.-gadfium 02:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  Presumably the individual(s) who actually remove the comment tags would have the sense to preview the text before saving it, or at least to look at it before leaving the page...? Broken markup is usually pretty conspicuous. If someone's doing something really ambitious they could remove the comment tags before previewing and put them back afterwards...or test it out in a sandbox. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • That's what I thought when I proposed it. When translating, the editor could remove the <-- tags and work, and place them back if the work on that paragraph is not finished. After the paragraph is done, just take them out altogether and make the translation a part of the base text through the usual copyediting methods. --Titoxd 20:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Seems to me like more work than the temp page strategy, but it certainly fulfills the requirements. Stan 04:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with either this solution or the temp page: I didn't like what happened to Glacier. -- hike395 05:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• This seems perfectly reasonable to me. Aslong as some comment is left explaining what all the hidden spanish text is. Go for it. gkhan 07:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Woooo! r3m0t ^talk 09:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Whatever you do, I think you need to preserve the en: article as you go along as a piece of English text. Commenting out would be OK by me, but I would have thought that working it out on a sub-page (which can then be archived as an old talk page for those who like edit history) would be better. A large part of the problem here (it seems to me) is that you've broken your own guidelines by picking glacier to translate: it wasn't a stub in the first place. And... because this has come up in talk: I hope this doesn't look like anti-Spanishness or something. Anyone improving the articles is great. But leaving them in a mess for days isn't. William M. Connolley 11:12:48, 2005-07-26 (UTC).
• Agreed, basically. This would be better than the temp page, because it would preserve the history of the page in one place, rather than having shadow pages that later readers might not even be aware of. Be sure to have a comment in the code to explain what's going on, per Gkhan's suggestion. However, I don't see why we can't leave the Translation template on the main page, as long as the Spanish text is hidden. It draws in more potential translators that way, and lets people know about the project without disrupting the page very much. --Skoosh 12:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the template should stay on the main page. --Titoxd 20:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed: Seems reasonable. The material in comments does no harm, and if forgotten it merely waits for another editor. I do suggest when the Translation header is added, also include in the Talk page a list of the subject headlines as invitation and temptation to translators reading there (generally this will just be a cut/paste from the original TOC). (SEWilco 15:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC))
• Agreed on the HTML comments, exactly what I suggested above. I think the translation project tag should be on the main page though: this is temporary, not very disruptive, and allows people working on this very valuable project to know that they have arrived at the correct page. And this should only be an issue when we are integrating into an existing article: when there is no previous English-language article, we should be able to do this the way we have always done. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Agreed - use comments for untranslated text and for an explanation of the process. And agree that temporary project tag can remain on article page. — Catherine\^talk 19:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

As there is a consensus, I have implemented this proposal. I commented out the Spanish text and left a temporary project tag at the top of the page. This procedure will be followed in the future if there is a substantial pre-exisiting English article. — J3ff 20:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Information loss

Let me begin by applauding the concept of these translations and the work that goes into them. Conveying information from one edition of Wikipedia to another is a very worthwhile undertaking. The team has recently finished the translation of Glacier, and I have finally had a chance to read over it. There was far too much editing going on for me to follow along the process, so I decided to wait until the dust settled. Unfortunately I see that, while the amount of technical information in the article has increased, some information has been lost in the process.

First and foremost, the article no longer describes what a glacier is. It talks about glaciers, and the associated terms, but does not describe a glacier. The first section of the article should provide a concise, concentrated statement describing the subject of the article. Let's compare the new opening statement (prior to my recent edit):

Geologic features associated with glaciers include end, lateral, and medial moraines that form from glacially transported rocks and debris; U-shaped valleys and cirques (cwms) at their heads. The glacier fringe is the area where the glacier has recently melted.

with the original English version:

A glacier is a large, long-lasting river of ice that is formed on land and moves in response to gravity. A glacier is formed by multi-year ice accretion in mountainous or sloping terrain.

The latter version sets the stage for the entire article, educating the reader with the minimal required amount of information that the rest of the article builds upon.

The other thing I want to alert the group to is the loss of information from the original article. Here are a few examples I've found of information loss after quickly skimming the article:

• Tidewater Glaciers and the formation of icebergs. Neither terms (Tidewater nor iceberg) can be found in the current article.
• Continental Glacier is no longer defined. It is referred to later in the article, but the actual description of what a continental glacier is has been removed.
• Glaciers are the largest reservoir of fresh water on earth.
• Glaciers are on all continents except Australia.

I suppose what I'm lamenting are simply the minor casualties typical of any massive rewrite. You guys keep up the great work, and try and make sure your articles start off with a good strong definition to set the stage.  :) I've already added corrected the issues I've mentioned, so you guys can keep focusing on your current project.

--Dan East 09:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Don Quixote

I see that the es: version is much more complete, whereas the en: one is rather short. But it's not like en: is missing an article, so I'd rather ask if it'd be okay to propose it as a candidate (to translate all the improvements) even though article already exists. -- < drini | ∂drini > 18:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

While our article can undoubtedly improve with material from the Spanish version, I think this is better as a project for a single person than as a collaboration. It is not only translation which is needed, but a merging of the content of the two articles, and this is not something easily done by many people working together. Others here may disagree with me.-gadfium 19:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd nominate it anyway, because after Gestalt therapy is done, we'll have an either/or election of two candidates, neither of which counts with an overwhelming amount of support. Who knows? Maybe others will like to chip in with the merging gadfium talks about. --Titoxd 06:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent STotWs

We seem to have stopped listing recent Translations of the Week on the project page. Since many of them have left behind significant incomplete work, I think we should restore that. For example, Cuisine of Argentina still has a lot of commented-out Spanish and needs a lot of cleanup besides. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree. Should they go under a brief snippet of text that says, "These articles have recently been translated as part of the project. Some of them may require additional work." or something like that? --Titoxd 20:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Gestalt Therapy

Might take longer than a week. Please don't rush it and sacrifice quality. As in the spirit of wikipedia, anyone and everyone is encouraged to help out and be bold. I will definitely work to its (slow) completion. Priorities.....--Jondel 02:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Done , please check.--Jondel 07:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Where'd everyone go?

The project page looks as though it has been unmaintained for a while: all the voting stuff is out of date, and the article marked as current translation of the week seems to have been in progress for about a month!

Have we all been away on holiday, or was it just me? :D

By my reckoning, we need to remove the expired votes for Tuxtla Gutiérrez and Age of Pericles, and the current vote for Battle of Yungay which seems to have been done already, put links to these on the History page, and suggest a new article for October 3rd. How about Capernaum from es:Cafarnaúm or Geology of the Falkland Islands from es:Geología de las Islas Malvinas?

es:Geología de la Luna seems worth looking at too; although the English article Geology of the Moon is not a stub, there is substantial new info in the Spanish version, especially on the mineral composition of the moon - and great diagrams! Keithlard 05:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm still here and, as usual, will try to help out with pretty much anything that is selected. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm still here too, only that I've been busy doing other things (like RC Patrol) since no new articles have been nominated. I especially adore the science articles, so I've been waiting for one to support. Titoxd 17:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I did this stuff. I never quite understood the voting mechanism so maybe I've messed this up. Keithlard 22:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm here too, just busy. I'd like to see lots more on Attack on Pearl Harbor, which in Spanish is just a stub Doovinator 16:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be one for the Spanish Wikipedia then? Keithlard 07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Come on, people, vote!!!! Titoxd 05:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If I understand the system rightly, Mission Nuestra Señora de Loreto is joint first with 2 votes and it was nominated first, so it should be the new SPATRA tomorrow. The others will then be candidates for October 10, or am I just in a confused world of my own? (That's happened before). Keithlard 06:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't care about Our Old Broad, I'd rather see one of the Geography articles. Doovinator

Vote for the one you want then! Just add #~~~~ under the 'Support' section. Keithlard 07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

New Translation of the Week

All right, I promoted Capernaum from: es:Cafarnaúm as the new Translation of the Week, since it had 3 votes vs. 2 for another two articles that are still in the mix. Please check if I did everything right, ok? This is my first SPATRA promotion. Titoxd 05:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've also created {{SPATRAref}}, to make it simpler to reference back to the corresponding Spanish article. Titoxd 06:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Cooperation with WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

I've contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles to check if they can parse a list of articles that are found in the Spanish Wikipedia but not in English. I contacted them because they have similar lists for French and German. I believe that with SPATRA we can do something similar for Spanish and reduce the number of entries even more than the other languages have. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/es. Note that the list contains a large number of articles that have an English equivalent, but are simply missing the proper interwiki link to the English wikipedia. For example: we do have an artice on Great Britain. -- Eugene van der Pijll 11:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

New translation - only in reverse

Well, it seems that Attack on Pearl Harbor has won the vote for this week's SPATRA. However, since it is Tuesday (not Sunday), and it is an inverse SPATRA, something we haven't done, would it be ok for me to promote it and leave it there for 1.75 weeks, until next Sunday? We'll probably have a few problems we haven't thought of, so that will give us more time; also, it gives us the chance to look for new noms. Any comments? Titoxd^(?!?) 05:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've set it up, only that I can't hide the text very well. I can't see what I'm doing wrong, does anyone want to help? Titoxd^(?!?) 05:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Where is everyone?

Hmm, the project has been very silent of late. Who is here, and who is willing to restart the normal translation process? Titoxd^(?!?) 06:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ever since Argentine cuisine (which hasn't been finished yet), the project has been running kinda slow. I have to admit myself that I haven't been working on translations at all, but I'm trying to keep my job in real life. Hope the project gets moving soon. Mariano(t/c) 10:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this dead?

I notice the page outdated with votes that are one month old. And no following comment. Hellooooo? Anybody home? --Anagnorisis 18:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The project itself is not dead, there are still a few editors lingering around. The votes are very old because nominations seem to come in spurts of several, and there haven't been any articles nominated since the last spurt, so I'm not delisting them for the time being. I will switch the translation to Geology of the Falkland Islands today, though, so that should revive the project up. Probably the notice on the main page of the project should be changed to reflect that. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

New "worklist" page

I've created a new page at Wikipedia:Spanish_Translation_of_the_Week/Worklist to allow us to collaborate on Spanish Wikipedia articles beyond the weekly collaboration, such as shorter articles that would never be candidates for the weekly gig. For example, say you're translating an article and find links to two or three other articles that also lack en: equivalents, but you're not going to translate them all immediately. Just post them on the worklist so that a future editor who drops in when the weekly translation is done or is on a topic that doesn't interest him/her can still help out. Longer articles could also go on the worklist page and become future SPATRA candidates. Questions? Thoughts? | Klaw ¡digame! 01:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Time to move on?

La Seo Cathedral seems finished, what's next? - Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a few phrases that I need to check with my local expert but I think we can call it done. Rodney Boyd 22:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

New ToftW

I promoted Campo de Criptana to be the new Translation of the Week. It seemed to have the most support. Cheers! Rodney Boyd 22:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Enrique Gaspar y Rimbau

The new STotW is Enrique Gaspar y Rimbau. Rodney Boyd 04:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've had a bash at the slightly easier non-discussion-of-his-work first half of the article. Proto||type 11:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I must be doing something wrong, since the {{SPATRAtopic}} template on the project page is not being expanded with the name of the current translation. Can anyone fix this? Thanks Rodney Boyd 12:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Vasco Núñez de Balboa

The new translation of the week is Vasco Núñez de Balboa. I created it as a subpage of the project page since there is already an English article (Vasco Núñez de Balboa) and because I've been told this is the right way to create new translations. Hope this is ok. Rodney Boyd 18:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Time for new article?

It seems that the Balboa article is now fully translated. When is the new one going to be announced? --Isabella123 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have one to suggest? - Jmabel | Talk 21:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The new article is selected according to the votes on the main page. Cao Yu is now leading. Anyone can promote an article to new STotW—see the instructions. However the current translation still seems to be in transit from STotW to main article. Rodney Boyd 22:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Balboa article is definitely done with translation, merge, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Inactive Translators

I was wondering if maybe we can erase some of the translators that have been inactive for some time. Like the following: 32, 34, 71, 83, 93 and 99 (see Translators. Let me know what you guys think. Gadig 23:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove inactive translators. We should keep the list for people who are interested in participating. If the issue is space, it would probably be a good idea to move the entire translator section into its own subpage. — J3ff 01:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've got mixed feelings about deleting inactive translators, but I would support moving the list of translators to another page. - Draeco 03:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Translation of Maestranza de caballería

Maestranza de caballería is now fully translated, though it needs a solid proofread by several editors to improve the flow. Let's put on the finishing touches and move on to the next article. As part of the finishing touches, we need to reach a concensus on format as discussed here. It looks like the next article will be the Siete Partidas, and I think we should probably remove Cao Yu since it's already been fully translated. - Draeco 03:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)