Should old translations be removed?

[Ivan-Brigidano]

The translations of the Regulation could be eliminated from the web but left archived in some way so that they can be updated later.

I'm not proposing to remove all the old translations, but I do propose to remove those that are very different from the current version of the regulation (more than three years?). Each year they accumulate more variations with respect to the current version and, although they are not an official version of the Regulations, they can confuse new competitors.

[mirandapedro]

Altough I agree they could cause some confusion, I think there is still value in keeping the on the website. The core of our processes hasn't changed that much from 2014 (our oldest current translation), so competitors could still benefit from having it on the website.

One possible solution is to add a disclaimer to very old translations, preferably in the native language, highlighting that this translation is of an old version of the regulations and they should refer to the english version to get the most up to date version. We could also encourage whoever is reading to contribute in GitHub by updating the translation.

[lgarron]

I agree a lot with Pedro: there is some benefit to keeping old versions, but it's probably time to add a significant disclaimer if we can't get them updated.

[Ivan-Brigidano]

Do you think that the disclaimer should be inside the Translation or on the translations tab? The second one would probably be more consistent as it wouldn't require to update the translations files every single year.

[mirandapedro]

As you said, putting the disclaimer in the translations tab would be easier.

However, I think we'd be getting better results if we put it inside each translation. We could write a standard disclaimer text that didn't need to get updated every year. The main logistical obstacle I see is that we'd have to translate the disclaimer to each of the languages that are not being updated, but I think that wouldn't be too hard to do.

We could also perhaps try and reach out to the people who worked on the previous versions of these translation to see if they'd are willing/available to do it again (we could send them a nice link with the comparison between the current version and the last updated version in their language to make their job a little easier).

[mirandapedro]

Another positive thing we could do, in alignment with the WRC's duties, is to contact the people who worked on the old versions of these updates and ask if they're willing/available to update the translations.

[lgarron]

I think inside the translations is important so that people actually see it if they visit a link to that page.

Another positive thing we could do, in alignment with the WRC's duties, is to contact the people who worked on the old versions of these updates and ask if they're willing/available to update the translations.

At some point, I'd like us to move to using the same system as the WCA website, which has a few benefits. Let me know if you want some details for how to implement this.

[Ivan-Brigidano]

At some point, I'd like us to move to using the same system as the WCA website, which has a few benefits. Let me know if you want some details for how to implement this.

Do you have any idea on how difficult would this to implement? It would definitely be very positive if that way it avoids translators having to be so careful about formatting and knowing the basics of GitHub.

[mirandapedro]

Additionally, do you know why we don't use GetText for translating the website? Is it an avenue we could perhaps pursue?

…

On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 2:02 PM Iván Brigidano Pérez < ***@***.***> wrote: At some point, I'd like us to move to using the same system as the WCA website, which has a few benefits. Let me know if you want some details for how to implement this. Do you have any idea on how difficult would this to implement? It would definitely be very positive if that way it avoids translators having to be so careful about formatting and knowing the basics of GitHub. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#92 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AM7U3ACZ4H2BUQBOZMXBTN3SEUGYTANCNFSM4PXQCOFQ> .

-- * * *World Cube Association*https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/ <https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/> The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipients specified in the message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

[c-goodyear]

I don't think leaving out of date regulations on the website is useful. We don't do it in the official version - the history is stored here on GitHub. Is there a specific reason that solution not appropriate for all the other languages?

Edit: I will be more specific. I'm talking about historic translations that have entire articles still in them where they are removed in the current regulations. Such removal is simple, and we can just have the disclaimer at the top of the page about not being up to date/help with updating the translation if possible, as Pedro brought up in his first comment.