Item talk:Q21717
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
@Oivo357: Nevhodný doslovný překlad "Obsahem nádrže je voda", správně "Nádrž určena na vodu" protože obsah může být i prázdný. (Inappropriate literal translation "The tank contains water"; correct translation "Tank intended for water" because the tank may also be empty.) --HaPe-CZ (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- No counterproposal, item corrected. --HaPe-CZ (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- Again, a nonsensical translation; it's not even passive voice, but a nonsensical mechanical translation. --HaPe-CZ (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- It contains water ... again, a translation that reveals your lack of knowledge of Czech language expression and stylistic content. --HaPe-CZ (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- The english description is not A storage tank intended for water.--Oivo357 (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @HaPe-CZ: give to us correct translation, please! Something B (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Something B: ... Do you mean the English description of the item? ... In my opinion (en): "Tank intended for water" or "Tank designed for water." possibly also like this: "Water tank." or "Tank for water." However, the designation "Waterworks" or "Water tower" is not appropriate. Choose the option that has the appropriate meaning in English. --HaPe-CZ (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, correct description isn't translation issue. In my opinion, "The feature contains water" is more correct in practical sense. But do not mix descriptions and translations; description can be nonsense, so translation would be nonsense also, but exact and correct in linguistic sense. Something B (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- "Correct description isn't a translation issue," so it can be phrased or explained differently in another language. If you like the original English version, it can stay there. However, this translation into Czech is incorrect. --HaPe-CZ (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, the current English description "The content of a storage tank is water" has room for improvement! "The contents of a container or containment are usually water" or "A containment that holds water" would be more suitable definitions, IMHO.
– @HaPe-CZ: I don't think, that it has to be taken into account in the short description that the tank maybe empty, because the tag describes the type or character, not the current state. Please do not blame a translation close to the English description to be false or bad. Nevertheless, you can encourage to improve the definition and description in a translation and the English one. While I can only rely on machine translation, I have the impression that your claim that the Czech translation is incorrect is not correct. It may not be great, or what you consider better. Don't blame the translation when the definition ist the question.
– @Oivo357: Please try to refrain from undoing such relatively minor differences. It's not always worth it. You can leave a comment on the talk page indicating which translation you prefer instead. A third party can choose it or not.
– To BOTH of you: I think you have to accept that it's not always the best solution from your point of view. Either you give in, find a level of substantive discussion, or you will harm the OSM Wiki and both yourselves if you continue like this. --Chris2map (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed, the current English description "The content of a storage tank is water" has room for improvement! "The contents of a container or containment are usually water" or "A containment that holds water" would be more suitable definitions, IMHO.
- "Correct description isn't a translation issue," so it can be phrased or explained differently in another language. If you like the original English version, it can stay there. However, this translation into Czech is incorrect. --HaPe-CZ (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- Strictly speaking, correct description isn't translation issue. In my opinion, "The feature contains water" is more correct in practical sense. But do not mix descriptions and translations; description can be nonsense, so translation would be nonsense also, but exact and correct in linguistic sense. Something B (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Something B: ... Do you mean the English description of the item? ... In my opinion (en): "Tank intended for water" or "Tank designed for water." possibly also like this: "Water tank." or "Tank for water." However, the designation "Waterworks" or "Water tower" is not appropriate. Choose the option that has the appropriate meaning in English. --HaPe-CZ (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @HaPe-CZ: give to us correct translation, please! Something B (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- The english description is not A storage tank intended for water.--Oivo357 (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Chris2map: "While I can only rely on machine translation" ... That is precisely the problem with machine translators. The translations look good because a machine translator is just a machine and translates word for word like a slave. From the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the Czech language, you may be misled into thinking that the translation is correct. Czech may have more expressions for a given thing than English, and vice versa. Machine translation does not take this into account. --HaPe-CZ (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Something B: "The content of a storage tank is water" In Czech, it states that the tank or reservoir is currently (at this moment) filled with water; it is a declarative sentence. However, we do not know whether the water is there or not. The tank may currently be empty. Therefore, "the tank is intended for water" or "water tank/reservoir." --HaPe-CZ (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- In English, it states the same. This tag about ordinary state of affairs, not about current one (just now), although "This feature usually contains water" perhaps will be more exact. Something B (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- There is a problem with the word "usually," which means that there may be (occasionally, sometimes, randomly) other content or substance. --HaPe-CZ (talk) 10:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that this possibility is OK because we can tag what is intended but cannot exclude that it may come different. We will not find an absolute, perfect definition with a short description. --Chris2map (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Chris2map: There are several possibilities. Perhaps it is due to inaccurate translation and knowledge. To conclude, write down the definition that you consider correct. Thx --HaPe-CZ (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Since I understand the tag as a property and not as a state, the question of whether it is currently empty or full is irrelevant to me. For a brief description, I would therefore be fine and choose one of those: a)The content of a tank or reservoir is water. / b) A tank or reservoir that holds water. / c) The contents for which a tank or reservoir is intended is water. - with a slight preference for "c)". --Chris2map (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, but I assumed something from the previous one. These are new suggestions that complicate things :). I had a translation done elsewhere, and it is very similar to what I wrote earlier: "A tank designated for water." --HaPe-CZ (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't want to say "A tank designated for water." is completely impossible. But I have a slight problem with this straight description; it gives me too much of an impression that a tank feature is being described with the key
contentas it would be a top-level feature key and not an additional property of a feature (same with b) of mine). --Chris2map (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't want to say "A tank designated for water." is completely impossible. But I have a slight problem with this straight description; it gives me too much of an impression that a tank feature is being described with the key
- Absolute simplification... "Designed for water." nothing else. Does not specify the tank, reservoir, or contents as full or empty. --HaPe-CZ (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the label is also simple. So shall we leave this short version, "Designed for water." as the item description? --HaPe-CZ (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for your opinion. --HaPe-CZ (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Chris2map: There are several possibilities. Perhaps it is due to inaccurate translation and knowledge. To conclude, write down the definition that you consider correct. Thx --HaPe-CZ (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would say that this possibility is OK because we can tag what is intended but cannot exclude that it may come different. We will not find an absolute, perfect definition with a short description. --Chris2map (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)