User talk:Elinruby/Archives/2020/June

Stub tags

Thank you for your recent edit to Potamonautes lividus, but please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag, and remember that all stub tags go at the foot of the article, not the top - see WP:ORDER. Thanks. PamD 05:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: thanks. Is there are better tag to use? This is a recurring problem iwth articles in the underlinked queue. I think someone is running a bot looking for a minimum number of links, but some of the articles are literally single-sentence, and the only words that can be wikilinked already are. But thanks for the info, will do so. Elinruby (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

If it's not underlinked, just remove that tag - and perhaps comment to whoever is assigning it inappropriately. But if you're going to add any stub tag, put it in the right place, and avoid wasting the time of the stub-sorters by adding "Stub" to a stub which already has an appropriate specific tag. Happy Editing. (You were the first recipient of my new "boiler-pate" version of the above message - it is quite often the message I want to leave, and I got fed up of typing it manually each time so have now stored it in my sandbox!) PamD 20:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@PamD: no problem, I need a "what were you thinking" button myself. But yeah, just trying a new way to reduce wasted motion at my end also, and sure, if I am there again I will look for stub at the end and if I am going to put a stub tag there myself I will put it at the end, no problem. Happy wikignoming. Elinruby (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

French translations

Hi, Elinruby,

I plan to get back to the Draft Phases of OCW article sometime soon, but in the meantime, I've been working on some French translations. One is in Draft, and has several empty sections that need work, and I could use some help. See if it looks like something you'd enjoy: Draft:Government of Vichy France. That one was inspired by a Move Request discussion; link is on the TP, if you'd like to take part.

I'm finishing up another one, Empire Defense Council, but there might be some cleanup needed there. If you feel like doing one from scratch that would be fairly small and easy, try French National Committee, currently a redirect. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Elinruby, thanks for all the improvements! Here's another one, created today: Template:French Resistance. I'm planning on moving it to mainspace soon, but feel free to update it before or after the move. There are also plenty of articles, that need this added as a Nav template at the bottom of the article. It's kind of strane, that that one didn't exist, before this. Mathglot (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree and you know, a lot of those Frenchr Foreign Legion were part of the Free French forces Elinruby (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elinruby:, Thanks for all your additions to Draft:Government of Vichy France. Here's another draft, if you want to jump around a bit: Draft:Clandestine press of the French Resistance. Some of the original is unclear, or even marked 'Dubious' in the original, and I'm either just dropping that stuff, or marking it unclear in the translated version if it seems important to bring it over in an unclear state.

If you think the {{French Resistance}} template needs the Foreign legion, feel free to add it in. Maybe in the Free French Africa section? Mathglot (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I would have to go back and look at the French Legion articles but offhand Free France and Free French Forces and French Forces of the Interior -- I think there was a also a Free French Forces overseas, or a name like that. Do you like the collapsible table idea? Elinruby (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elinruby:, sorry, must have missed this notif; where is the collapsible table, which article? Btw, I finally completed the translation of the Draft, and it's just been moved to Clandestine press of the French Resistance. You know how it is with fresh translations, there's all sorts of awkwardness (not to mention not enough citations). If you felt like having a look at it, and do your magic to whip it into shape, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Francophone sources for War of 1812

When you mentioned your efforts to find French-language sources for the War of 1812, the idea immediately struck me (as no doubt it already had to you) that one could do worse than consult the French (or Francophone) version of the article — which by the way succeeded in winning a gold star unlike the Anglophone version — and it does have a number of what appear to be original Reliable Sources in French. See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerre_anglo-am%C3%A9ricaine_de_1812#Annexe —— Shakescene (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shakescene: Thanks. It was originally translated from English ten years ago but it is quite different in places. And better written, it seems to me. I translated the end of the lead to the talk page as a sample. There is also a list of battles, not all of which are covered in the English version, I don’t think. Elinruby (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Francophone sources for War of 1812

When you mentioned your efforts to find French-language sources for the War of 1812, the idea immediately struck me (as no doubt it already had to you) that one could do worse than consult the French (or Francophone) version of the article — which by the way succeeded in winning a gold star unlike the Anglophone version — and it does have a number of what appear to be original Reliable Sources in French. See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerre_anglo-am%C3%A9ricaine_de_1812#Annexe —— Shakescene (talk) 04:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shakescene: Thanks. It was originally translated from English ten years ago but it is quite different in places. And better written, it seems to me. I translated the end of the lead to the talk page as a sample. There is also a list of battles, not all of which are covered in the English version, I don’t think. Elinruby (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Mourir pour Dantzig?

Since you've written that French-English translations are one of you main Wiki-concerns, perhaps you could double-check my own translation of a passage from Marcel Déat's notorious article «Mourir pour Dantzig?». While I don't think I committed any major errors, there are nuances I may very well have missed when using the bundle of meanings in an English word to match a different bundle of meanings in the original French word. (I had particular difficulty finding the right sort of translation for "nos biens"). Déat's original words were

"Combattre aux côtés de nos amis polonais pour la défense commune de nos territoires, de nos biens, de nos libertés, c’est une perspective qu’on peut courageusement envisager, si elle doit contribuer au maintien de la paix. Mais mourir pour Dantzig, non !" — Marcel Déat, "Mourir pour Dantzig", L'Œuvre, 4 mai 1939, cited in French Wikipédia's article on Marcel Déat

which I translated thus:

"To fight alongside our Polish friends for the common defense of our territories, of our property, of our liberties," wrote Déat, "this is a perspective that one can courageously envisage, if it should contribute to maintaining the peace. But to die for Danzig, no!"

Thanks for any pointers —— Shakescene (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Shakescene: biens is a bit difficult and I have in the past struggled and left it untranslated (Biens mal acquis). However that is a concept in French law where "assets" is pretty close, and here you really should translate. Property, on a first pass scan, actually looks pretty good, but I will need to read the whole thing in context to give you a real opinion. I have also seen it used to mean "every thing that we (perhaps as a culture) have constructed." For example an Algerian government list of "Biens culturels" includes forests and the footprints of Mohammed's horse. The best I could do there was assets also. Let me think on it and read. I just woke up. I am a little concerned about "doit", which is usually a very strong "must", and here may mean "should that become necessary", since France didn't do a damn thing about the Nazis until it really had to. I'll get back to you. By the way, if you are interested in this topic, I am currently working on slash taking a break from Vel d'Hiv roundup and Draft: Government of Vichy France. Also, Pierre Bonny is a stub at en.wikipedia, but a Good Article in French. So yeah, in a time of Nazis, I have Nazis to write about, and don't want to spend too much time on a tarbaby question like who won the war of 1812Elinruby (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elinruby: My two comments after the most shamefully-cursory glance at the Vichy govt draft are

(1) that the lists of ministers need to go on a separate list article, with only the top 4-6 jobs in each prime-ministry (e.g. Justice or Finance) listed in the main article; otherwise that article gets as long and exhausting to read (or leave unread) as the Anglophone War of 1812. Should it be any consolation, someone deleted all the hard work that I put into a year-by-year table of United States presidential nominating conventions — which prompted me to rescue it and create List of presidential nominating conventions in the United States. It's no doubt useful to show how some collaborateur jumped every few months from post to post, but that can be shown and seen in a stand-alone list.

(2) I read the W.W. Norton paperback of Robert O. Paxton's Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order many years ago. In an Anglophone article on Vichy government, the reference should be to the relevant page of the English original rather than its French translation.

Bonne Chance! —— Shakescene (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree and that was originally what this article was supposed to be, but the summary of exactly how power changed hands on each step into Fascism is also as pared-down as I can currently make it but really important. I am taking one or more pages of stand -alone lists. I thought about paring off the minister for youth and so on, but look at the Hitler Junge. Then maybe put the table as a See only at top of each section? Or use anchors.

Anyway before I get into the translation question, let me mention that we are crying for Spanish and Portuguese people in Operation Car Wash.

On the issue of "doit" it is important to realize that this is a conditional: "si on doit" translated literally means "if one must". Notice that despite si this is a verb in the present tense, not the conditional. The infinitive of "doit" is "devoir", which means "duty" when used as a noun. The conditional tense is used in French to indicate attribution ("aurait dit") or some condition that must met. But it isn't used here so I think it means IF the condition = necessity THEN "on peut envisager", or in other words "we aren't going to do this unless it is necessary." It looks much braver if you put the brave stuff you aren't going to do up front. You should also look at "envisager". The usual primary translation would indeed be "consider" but how does one courageously consider, I wonder. Since this is a politician's essay, let's look at an older more formal meaning, maybe. "Visage" means "face". Possibly "courageously face" the perspective (prospect?). You should try to find the entire original if you can, but pending that I think he means that the French are able (peut) to fight but choose not to because they don't have to, and seriously, who cares about Gdansk. HTH. Tip for french in general, learn conditional tenses. Elinruby (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Shakescene, you had it right; nos biens is definitely "our property" here. I would start the paragraph off with a gerund rather than a literal-translation infinitive: "Fighting alongside...". English doesn't require distribution of the preposition before every object like French does, so: "...of our territories, our property, our freedoms,...". You can also distribute out the "our", as English is much more efficient than French is. "C'est une...": not "this is" here, just "is". All in all, I'd write it thus:

Fighting alongside our Polish friends in common defense of our lands, properties, and freedoms is a perspective we could courageously contemplate, if it contributed to keeping the peace. But dying for Danzig? No way!"

Okay, the "no way" is too informal and American sounding; so don't put that (even though that's really what he means), just put "no", but definitely keep the exclamation point.

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'd change that last bit to, "...to die for Danzig?" not because the other way was wrong, but just because "dying for Danzig" has an alliterative, almost poetic meter with a dactyl and trochee that are unintentional and somewhat distracting. But that's strictly a stylistic point, and nothing to do with translation, really. Mathglot (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: @Shakescene: I like Mathgot's translation because it quite effectively sidesteps the verb weirdness discussed above, while keeping the sense of necessity, but I do also think maybe "face" is a better translation for the reasons outlined above. Elinruby (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: @Elinruby: (1) After some thought and cursory study on-line and in le Petit Larousse Illustré 2020, I see not only that envisager might perhaps be better translated "consider" (and courageusement as "bravely"), but also that biens seems to have an implication or meaning of "rights", principally rights of possession, but also perhaps more generally. So to lurch a little severely from literal to idiomatic English, and to invert some of Déat's rhetorical rhythm, I might do as well or better with some very free translation such as

One can bravely contemplate the view that keeping the peace might compel us to fight at the side of our Polish friends in mutual defense of our lands, our rights and our freedoms. But to die for Danzig, no!

However, while wrecking Déat's rhythm in the first sentence, I'd keep the original order of "to die for Danzig" in the second because "To Die For Danzig?" has long been an English-language catchphrase. If I were to use so free a translation, I'd probably stick a more literal one in the footnote next to the French original.

(2) I did look for an on-line version of the French original when I first made that translation many years ago, with no luck. But on checking again, I see there is a 1970 republication by La Table Ronde that's available, says WorldCat in over 60 scholarly libraries from UCLA to the Ivy League to the NY Public Library to Québec & Ottawa to Paris to Warsaw to Canberra. See: https://www.worldcat.org/title/mourir-pour-dantzig/oclc/6497422#borrow —— Shakescene (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Will get back to you later, but biens is not “rights”. Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I didn't say anything about rights, what you talking about sir? I said an alternate translation was "assets". Where do you see that? I suppose it's barely possible that predictive text got me somehow; I am on a smartphone Elinruby (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

See Shakescene at 05:37. L8r! Mathglot (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

NM, I see now that you are talking to Shakescene. I agree that this is a jump, although he has a point. It occurred to me after I last chimed in that "wealth", "treasures" and "riches" are also possible. Treasures might fit here Elinruby (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Got it Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812

Thanks for advising me about the war of 1812 being on the fringe noticeboard. I suspect it was raised in the first place as a fringe viewpoint, simply because the editor didn't agree with it, and thought that was a good way to attack it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deathlibrarian: It is a tactic used by contentious editors. In the Ugg boot article the issue was that the US allowed a US corporation to trademark a term in common usage in New Zealand and the corporation felt strongly that the common usage should not be included, because there are more people in the United States than in New Zealand, so therefore it was a fringe theory to say they had been commonly worn in New Zealand for decades Elinruby (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I guess it was Australia not NZ where it originated, tho they are worn in NZ also (?) Just to correct my analogy Elinruby (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812 Infobox - Not following Wikipedia Policy

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.