i like option 3 and 4. both have their advantages. option 3 would mean there's only translated content in other languages, option 4 allows other pages too.
the problem i see with option 4 is, the translated pages are not directly connected with the original english page, which might cause some difficulties if somebody wants to find and read the original text.
i've already given reasons why i'd prefer option 3 earlier in this discussion ;) ( https://www.loomio.org/discussions/5662#comment-44256 )

So how do we cut down the list? Vote whether we want to allow arbitrary content or just translated one?

the problem i see with option 4 is, the translated pages are not directly connected with the original english page, which might cause some difficulties if somebody wants to find and read the original text.

I'm not sure quite why this would be a problem, Waithamai. If wikis are independent, each community will (hopefully) maintain and complete and up-to-date wiki in their language. As I've said before, there will be no reason to think the English text will be any more authoritative than the text in any other language. Therefore there should be no need for anyone to refer to English text, and if someone wants to read text in English, they can navigate to the English wiki and find an equivalent page (although likely not the same page) in English.

The exception to this, it seems to be agreed, will be the technical documentation. This would be maintained only in English. In this case, links to the relevant pages in the English wiki can be given in pages in other languages.

@goob problems occur when something is changed and the translated pages lag behind. some communities are more active than others.. so i'd like to keep the pages directly connected to each other. but it will work either way..

@jonnehass probably it would be more useful to vote whether to use an own namespace for each language or to include them in the main namespace.. but dunno

Lag of the kind you describe would surely only be a problem if the translation were tied to the English text. If the wikis in different languages have independent content, there will be no lag.

Obviously if a particular community stops updating their pages, that will not be good, but that would be a problem whether the wiki content was tied to or independent of the English version. And the solution is to find ways to keep communities more active, which is a different matter. I don't think the possibility of a community becoming dormant in updating the wiki in their language is in itself an argument to have content tied to the English wiki.

IMHO, OSM is a very bad example.
WMF a positive one:
Let's see an example page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Diff
It is based on template Languages
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Languages
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Languages/Lang
I think that it is the best solution for this kind of work

I'm not sure how to vote on this, because I would prefer each language community to be able to record information in their own way, but the vote for each language to have a separate namespace was defeated, and it would be far to chaotic to have completely unrelated pages in all sorts of languages floating around on the same wiki.

I don't really like idea of maintaining the supremacy of English in diaspora. In some cases, e.g. the main diaspora app, it makes sense, because it's developed in English, and text has to be the same in each language as it is used in very specific ways, so strict translations is sensible. However a wiki is purely text, with no strict reference to something else, so there is no reason to compose text in one language and translate directly into other languages.

I still feel it would be better to allow each language an area to create their own wiki. However, as the vote was not to allow each language their own area, the only real option is to force each language to translate directly from English. However, I think it will be a shame if this is what ends up happening, for the reasons above.

So this vote is kind of, I would really like to vote no, but given the results of the previous votes, my only option is to vote yes. Unless someone can suggest another way forward.

So now people go ahead and create non English categories... like https://wiki.diasporafoundation.org/Category:Comunidad

Opinions?

Or worse: Templates: https://wiki.diasporafoundation.org/Template:Idiomas

To me it makes no sense to have pages in a language which are listed in categories in another language, or templates in another language - or that the page title is also in another language. It makes no sense to me to have (in this case) a page in Spanish with an English page title, or for pages in Spanish to be listed in categories in English or templates in English. An Hispanophone is not going to find a list of page titles, categories or templates in English very useful, unless they speak English well.

This is one of the reasons I was (and am) in favour of allowing different language communities to form wikis in their own languages in their own structure rather than restricting non-English content to direct translations of English articles. If we're saying 'no, you can't have categories or templates in your own languages', then it's not really fit for purpose for speakers of those languages - it leaves an hierarchy with English at the top, which I don't like, and also requires everyone to be able to speak some English to fully use the wiki, which kind of negates the purpose of having translations.

I still think we should allow different language communities to do whatever they want - having a different namespace for each language seemed like a good solution to me. Perhaps now problems are arising as a result of the decisions made previously, it would be worth discussing again the different options and taking some new votes.

we are a global community and as such we have to find a common denominator for languages.
We took a vote, and decided it would be English as a base language and from that we would create translations... A different proposal was already declined by a majority.

If we look at other wikis that have the same translation scheme, they seem not to translate "system content" like templates or categories (since that does not comply with the scheme of "Article/lang", also, it does get very "meta" in that area).

We have chosen a way to go, now we should stick with it... at least a little longer than just one month.

What about categories that are just the languages name, such as https://wiki.diasporafoundation.org/Category:%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9 (Russian) and https://wiki.diasporafoundation.org/Category:Deutsch (German)

@michaelmoroni I do think you can. And in this case it would be harmful to translate them.

@jonnehass
I'm in favour of deleting template:Idiomas only because the word "Languages" is translatable in another efficient way.
I think that category names should be translated too because it makes clear the sense of that category.

About translation of installation guide: nope, harmfulness of obsolete translation is a problem even with all other pages. We should translate all page or don't translate at all. If you don't translate installation guide what would you translate? What if you want to install a Linux distro (i.e. Arch Linux) and you can find a wiki about it (ArchWiki) and you can find all content translatable but installation guide? Isn't it non-sense? Doesn't it encourage you to fulfill the missing translation?

It's linguistic democracy: everyone should be able to get a content in their own language.

We chose to translate the wiki so we translate ALL the wiki. My position is to block this votation because the proposal is non-sense.

You're neglecting my other major point though: The impression that you can maintain a (diaspora) server without English knowledge is false. Our configuration file is commented in English. Our configuration examples for Nginx and Apache are commented in English. The configuration files for Redis, MySQL and PostgreSQL are commented in English. The configuration files for Postfix, Exim and possibly any other MTA you can think of are commented in English. All your log files are in English. There aren't translations for all manual pages. Even using the commandline requires English skills because all command names are based on it.

Then our project has a history of terrible installation guides, even if you know English well, people failed all the time on them, the new guides improved that situation but they still do. So you need to able to seek support. Best way to do that requires you to speak English.

I see no benefit to translating the guides, it only adds content that gets quickly outdated and misleading. Stuff like the main page or the user FAQ is a whole different story because in fact you can use Diaspora without speaking English, diasporafoundation.org soon will become available in many languages, with autodetection, Diaspora itself already is available in many languages with autodetection. You just won't be able to maintain a pod without speaking English, so no added value here.

Thank you @jonnehass. You confirm my block position.

Again, it's not about being able to understand English in order to maintain a pod but it is about getting contents in your own language. It's simpler to follow instruction in your own language instead of follow instruction in a foreign language.

It doesn't need to understand English language in order to install a pod if you have a guide in your own language.

I'd prefer not to translate the wiki at all instead of translating only part of it. Sincerely.

It doesn’t need to understand English language in order to install a pod if you have a guide in your own language.

This statement is plainly wrong, as I've outlined earlier. You yet didn't refute the argument that a translated guide would only create the false impression of being able to install and maintain a pod without English knowledge. Therefore I conclude that you only have an opinion and no arguments on the topic, I don't think that justifies a block, please just vote no to express your opinion. A block should only be used if you have objective arguments against an idea.

@michaelmoroni

In this way you should create namespaces for every language.

A proposal for that was made a while ago, but was voted down. See https://www.loomio.org/discussions/5662?proposal=4088

So we can't do that, unless another vote is taken. For the moment, we need to go with what was voted, which is for direct translations from English into different languages all in the main wiki.

@deebaumdeesaster @michaelmoroni would you still block the last proposal? It's been a year and the language switcher on the guides is just confusing crap.

Okay, I'm gonna write a proposal "simplify the installation of diaspora*" ^ ^

@flaburgan such a proposal would be useless.

... I was kidding.

People are gonna translate the installation guide anyway, at least for french. So, do we want to keep this translation centralized in the wiki, or do we reject it and let them host it, that's the real question for me.

Anyone can translate anything they want, but if we vote to disallow translated installation guides, then they should be hosted elsewhere. Simple :)

Just throwing it out there - If you want to pull the translated guides from the wiki and host/maintain them on the community run diaspora forum (which is gradually building in terms of language support), you guys would be more than welcome to do so :)

If you do so, please just make clear that these are no officially supported guides.

Anyone can translate anything they want, but if we vote to disallow translated installation guides, then they should be hosted elsewhere. Simple

Just what Jason says. In an open project, anyone can fork any of the data and do what they like with it, including translating text, but these forks shouldn't be 'officially' hosted or promoted.

Besides, people are going to do it anyway.

And that's fine. The issue is 'should people be able to do this in the officially hosted D* wiki, or should they do it somewhere else?'

@Airon90
Maybe we can agree on this: There will be no official translation and whoever wants to translate some documentation should keep their hands from the english guides, so nothing will be messed up.

If people following non-english guides have problems, for example because information is outdated, there will be no support from the official diaspora-channel... only installing using the english documentation is recommended.

I think the main reason for this proposal is to keep the developing community focussed on only ONE version of documentation, so there is less work involved maintaining the official documentation.

If there are non-official translations, that's fine - as long as people are not blaming the official diaspora support for not keeping them up to date.

@Airon90 I asked two weeks before creating the proposal. Please just disagree, you had enough time to start a discussion. Besides you neglect any argument of the proposal, I wonder if you even read it.

Block is just a no anyway, we've voted about that ;)

No one here is disallowing anything. Just whether translations should be accepted in the official wiki. I doubt anyone would be breaking any laws, our wiki not being governed by law ;)

Doesn't mean we can just ignore blocks and shouldn't try to resolve them.

@jonnehass You asked me if I still block the proposal and I said yes. Nothing is changed since the last discussion in the last year so why are you saying that I have to just disagree?

Time to reread the discussion. There are still arguments you didn't refute and I don't see you opposing when I called again 25 days ago, two weeks before opening the new proposal. Also your vote explanation gives the impression that you neither read the proposal nor the discussion that followed it. Since you're unable to refute all pro arguments, your vote clearly is opinion. Which is fine but shouldn't be expressed with a block which should have technical or at least objective reasons.

I understand your fears about potentially mistranslated content concerning the D* installation, but what about the resources that come with ? I mean, are you thinking to delete the "end-user-guide" with its help about markdown, with its explanation about general functioning, and its listings of pods, of IRC Channels, and so on ?

No, this is only about the installation guides.

Ok, that seems correct. To me, it' yes.

@Airon90 obviously isn't interested in an objective discussion, making his block a pure opinion vote. Unless somebody opposes I therefore will treat it as a simple 'no' as per https://www.loomio.org/d/DGjvERsx/blocked-proposals?proposal=Wrow8KAk