Talk:Rock of Oëtre

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Mid‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Normandy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NormandyWikipedia:WikiProject NormandyTemplate:WikiProject NormandyNormandy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Not Travel"

Hi Sandstein,

I see you scrubbed the walks section. While I am inclined to agree with you, I also had to considered that the first task was to provide a fairly literal translation so that others can comment on it. It's rather a backwater article anyway, so it seems (which is why I picked it as one of my early attempts at translation) and the information you removed is hardly likely to mislead or to throw people off their chairs in horror.

May I suggest we leave it a few days, until after the Easter holiday when perhaps more people are WP'ing from their desk at work (!) in the faint hope that anyone else will provide other comments. As I say, I don't disagree with you in principle but since I've only just created it and probably few have had a chance to make other, more minor edits, which might tie into at least a few bits in the stuff you removed, I think it should have a little chance to stay for a while.

And yes I know there are sandboxes etc etc. The truth is unless you edit in the mainspace-- and since this article didn't exist it is hardly hurting anyone to do so-- nothing ever gets looked at.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. When translating articles, we must be attentive to what we translate; not everything that foreign-language Wikipedias carry is suited for inclusion here (or, indeed, even in the original French article). WP:NOTTRAVEL is rather clear that such content does not belong here; moreover, it is unsourced, failing WP:V. I'll ask for someone else's opinion at WP:3O. Sandstein 15:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To people coming here from 3O, the question is whether this text should be included in the article. Sandstein 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion - Sandstein hit it right on the head. The text is not suitable for the article per WP:NOTTRAVEL. The prose in question sounds like it could be in a travel guide which is one of the things that wikipedia is not. ƒingers^on_Roids 23:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have no prob with that opinion. I just want the article to stay a little to gather those opinions. I myself agree with you, but since it is in the French Wikipedia that way-- which admittedly is allowed to have different standards-- I thought best to translate it whole. It was the hardest bloody section to translate, too :) I don't mind losing it, I don't claim ownership, I just want it to have a short life so others can opine-- thank you for doing so. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Sandstein: Yeah, you may notice on all the articles I have so far translated-- and deliberately I chose minor ones-- I have done checks to fix up references (indeed added some that the original hasn't got) tried to find English sources instead of French ones, and so on. I don't translate totally blindly, but as a first pass I think it is not too bad just to try to get the text and-- more-- the structure in place. Other editors can correct the text quite easily but may be daunted with infoboxes etc, so if at least I get that in place, at least I am going in the right direction, I hope. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title - English or french?

While I am here I might as well ask this-- assuming this article is notable at all, I wonder whether I should have kept it as Roche d'Oetre or anglicized it to Rock. (I have the same worry with Swiss Normandy). It did require me to jump through hoops a bit; there are enough precedents on both sides that it is hard to know; major stuff tends to be anglicised and minor stuff stay in French, when stuff is kinda between the two extremes it is hard to know which way to jump. Opinions? SimonTrew (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per WP:TITLE we use the form most commonly used by English speakers. A Google search for both variants in English documents only should provide a rough approximation. Sandstein 15:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did the googling bit as I was translating and nothing particularl conclusive either way; the French is mostly French sites and the English pretty much non-existent, hence my bind. I think just let it stay for now, I am registered on French WP, if nothing else I will get a comment there (since it's now crosslinked or whatever the proper word is). SimonTrew (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]