394:. You should take these to a user subpage as a workspace for cleanup. Because these are so difficult to read, they're too raw to be articles. Otherwise, I think you'll spend all your time fighting off VfDs. Userfying them will let you develop them, and post them back as new articles when they've had a basic cleanup. That doesn't mean you have to wait until they're fully done, but they should at least be a short overview of a topic. You could then post the remaining raw data onto the article's talk page to allow for collaboration without exposing the severely broken english in main article pages. --
820:
to actively manage it. I don't think we should delete this information, but we should quarantine it for further work. If we do nothing, I fear we'll be back here in a month having the same conversation but with an even longer list of articles. Even worse, I fear we'll end up with a bunch of articles that have been cleaned up from broken
English but are full of inaccuracies because none of the translation can be confirmed.
692:
the original has been run through a distortion filter. How can this information be dependable? The second concerns the original sources. Especially in a case such as this, the source should be cited for verifiability. Somehow "This is what I think someone who doesn't speak
English was trying to relate from uncited sources that cannot be checked" does not seem to be a dependable standard. For example:
219:. I did vote to delete on all of the individual VfDs, already, but in the interests of clarity and expediency, I figure I may as well voice the vote here, too. Seriously: the language is mangled enough that it might as well be nonsense. I honestly cannot make heads or tails of any of it, and I seriously doubt anyone could salvage anything from this mess. --
888:
imcomprehensible -- apparently those voters lack contextual knowledge, and should perhaps exercise more discretion. Several of the articles are especially bad in that they are period focused (circa WW-II ands aftermath) without refering to prior or subsequent (to current days) history, but that merely confirms their status as a stub needing expansion.
761:. I've thought about this, and to me, the progress already evident on these articles are a prime example of how a Wiki works. However, each and every one of these should be moved to an article title appropriate for what the core editors believe will be the end result. If you later find your guess was wrong, move them again. ;)
681:: keep for now, but relist the lot here in a month's time, at which time any articles not cleaned up should be deleted. Since the current contents of many of these articles are baffling, this current vote's decision should not bind any future vote: the articles may be deletable on other grounds, once they've been tidied. --
133:
887:
I should be able to attend to some cleansing as I continue working through Russo-Japanese War related artys, whereon, I have no less than eight references spanning six decades, about half of which treat some of these topics (Based on a quick peek at the Vfd nominees). I'm not sure why some Artys seem
691:
unless more information about the source of this information can be obtained. I have two general problems with these articles. One is that much of the material is so garbled, I don't see how it can be reliably cleaned up. Sure, you can take some wild guesses at what the editor meant, but basically
987:
which are properly named and contain much of this information, or at least headings under which much of this information should go. I cannot believe that
Knowledge is well served by pages titled "Additiona information over foreing Commerce and Navigation" or "Comments of Japanese Finanzes". Extract
819:
reveals several dozen articles and content seems to be added daily. The sheer volume of fixing them combined with the risks of information loss/distortion suggest that the issue of problematic articles from this source will persist and likely grow unless the
Knowledge community comes up with a way
613:
of course. Anything that is not worth keeping in its cleaned-up state is naturally subject to being deleted. I can't understand why people say 'delete' before those who would be interested in cleaning up, rationalising and editing the material have their change. By the way, the author is a prolific
472:
that isn't a policy. Knowledge is a work in progress and thus contains thousands of articles of a visibly sub-par nature. However as
Knowledge slowly matures, and its editor base changes, the average amount of patience that the user base has with such articles has diminished. "Modify in user-space"
153:
It looks like someone took an old book on
Imperial Japan and split it into a large number of article. All of them of the same quality and use: it sems that all of them cover data for past time. While pieces of them may be salvageable into corresponding articles with proper titles, in this form they
811:
With the original text in
Japanese and the contributor being a spanish speaker we are looking at three translation steps here: Japanese → Spanish → broken English → English. When working on the broken English I've been worried that I have been at risk of changing the original information. Quite
308:
ing them is that then they end up in the widely ignored userspace. There is enough work here that it needs to be someplace where people can stumble upon them and work at cleaning them up (which is what I did). We need the strength in numbers, because it's hard work. It would take me a long time
700:
in Chosen
Province,the most great and important of your exterior areas residing ones 25,000,000,000(1944 census)between theirs stay one 3% of Japanese residents,why served in government,commerce,industry and Military services.exist one Chinese and Manchu little minority another Koreans living in
369:
As I stated below on a similar comment, this makes little sense to me because (a) Charles
Matthews is not contributing the foundation articles and (b) this is a general bibliography on the topic which makes no particular connection with any of the articles. I'm asking about the sources that
730:
I don't quite understand this comment, because
Charles Matthews is not the person submitting the garbled articles. This is a general all-purpose bibliography on Imperial Japan. It does not tell us where the contributor's many specific facts and figures came from. I think making something
625:
The reason I would vote 'delete' before cleanup is that it seems to me that cleanup would require some mindreading as to what the contributor meant by much of the existing phrasing. The contributions are neither in English nor in a language that can be translated into English.
323:
Isn't it policy acceptable to put them into articlespace as something like "Imperial Japan Finances/temp". Then post any of the cleaned content to date, a note about their origin and state of development in "Imperial Japan Finances" page with a link to the temp pages?
342:
If these are reliable data are from valuable, out-of-print sources, perhaps the editor should at least *cite* the source so they have some appearance of verifiability. I don't know how you can tell what source these are from though... perhaps private correspondence?
61:
460:
that articles which do not meet certain qquality standards, but on which work is being done, be deleted completely until they reach such standards, rather than marking them with requests for assistance, and allowing organic development of the entries ?
145:
374:
or IP number 200.46.X.Y or whatever he chooses to call himself is using. By this logic, I could write anything at all in these articles, and because Charles Matthews has a bibliography in his userspace, it would be considered sourced information.
916:
these days). One problem with my work on the Russo-Japanese war, is that there are five different languages involved: Russian, Chinese, Brittish, Japanese, and American. Then again, one author noted that there were no less than eight different
532:
or use as a source. Information may be relevant but unfortunately the articles are really in very shoddy condition. People willing to work on them could move them to temp or user pages or use them, for example, as a source for articles like
1015:
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.
844:
Too many problems; complete rewrite needed, lack of sources plus inability to learn sources due to contributor anonymity and poor language skills, potentially copyvio, inability to determine copyvio status. If people want to,
707:
Is there a serious suggestion that that the population of this province was 25 billion, or if the number does not refer to population, to what does it refer? Keep in mind, all this data is coming from (an) uncited source(s).
666:
yeah, but things like "the heavy industrial amplified by ones 400%"--is that revenue or assest value? the cochinglish doesnt turn me off, is the vagueness the articles would have even if they were written in native english.
121:
97:
184:
85:
511:
all of them and work on them until there is a correct English version of this that makes sense. None of these currently belong in the main namespace, and either way a lot of the titles have spelling mistakes.
782:, and nothing I've seen on the job has been as bad as these. These are too garbled to be even minimally acceptable, and any acceptable "clean-up" would have to be a complete replacement of the text. --
294:
then they should write them in spanish and have some who can speak english translate them before adding them as articles. i'm going to move the lot into my user page and see what i can do, though.
269:. These contributions are made by a spanish speaker providing information out of sources no longer in print. There are several people working on them (for instance, you can check the results at
109:
73:
56:
731:
verifiable and identifying the source of data requires a bit more precision than a general purpose bibliography in userspace that is not specifically connected to any of the articles. --
615:
140:
895:
clean up by contributors that are also provinding family members would pretty much kill off a lot of slow developing wiki-improvements, as we do have lives outside Knowledge.
593:
the lot. I'm sure the author had the best of intentions and put a lot of work into this, but it's just too indecipherable to make out anything useful or flag it for cleanup.
128:
891:
Timeframe of five days might be suitable to a student's life, assuming one was prone to ignore classwork and Wiki full time, which I hope seldom happens. So expecting such
959:. Has good info, even if badly written. I wish though that the author at least use basic typographical standards, like putting space after comma, and create an account.
716:
355:
282:
921:
renderings of a single Russian Admirals name; bad spellings (and typos) in sum, will be corrected. Ususally inside 45 minutes if MY Experience is a reliable measure!
177:
I do. I see no reason to make a mass deletion here. By putting these on VfD, rather than clean-up, you have prevented any moving to better titles, or merging.
446:
274:
639:
116:
912:, use of a phrase like "She's Wicked" refered more to 'being bad, only worse and evil to boot' than today's usage (not to mention the uses of the word
937:
to be cleaned up. And other articles have to link to these articles, too, or no one will ever see them ,and that wouldn't be a good thing.
816:
266:
473:
is becoming a more common and acceptable suggestion" but I think everyone continues to agree that we don't won't to lose material.
812:
honestly, I concluded that the integrity of the information was getting compromised as a result of the multiple translation steps.
38:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
92:
17:
80:
933:
Hey, just because someone doesn't have perfect English doesn't mean you have to ignore what they wrote. But these articles
834:. Keep in mind that if this is just a translation (however bad) of a work protected by copyright, it would be copyvio. --
104:
68:
847:
they could be userfied and merged but the source and copyvio questions remain very pertinent, with no likely resolution
23:
603:
or userfy if people are working on them but they are in need of clean-up and after that movement to better titles. --
252:
134:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Aditionally information over Population,residents for surface in country and relationed
719:
that Charles Matthews has. I would agree that the population of 25 billion is probably on the high side. :)
513:
1006:
988:
the useful information, add it to the relevant articles, create new relevant articles if necessary. But
980:
849:
652:
Maybe it's because of my degree in Finance, but I find your cleanup efforts laudable and worthwhile. --
619:
618:
has already been substantially cleaned up. I protest at its inclusion at the end of the list of others.
278:
178:
52:
The following bunch of articles, covered by separate votes for deletion, IMO must be handled together.
642:; so far it doesnt seem to be worth the effort, but i'll take a look at the others, see what turns up.
960:
220:
270:
778:, and resubmit if they're in English. My day job is checking English translations done by Japanese
767:
752:
658:
400:
330:
309:(if ever) if they were just in my user space (or anyone elses). I'd rather see the wiki at work.
245:
187:. If you need these pages for further work, please put them into your own user space as subpages.
938:
484:
462:
371:
210:
191:
168:
158:
614:
contributor, with a track record of digging up much useful research from contemporary sources.
1003:
787:
34:
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below.
951:
863:
584:
548:
534:
523:
477:
428:
265:: I understand the tendency, because I ran into one of these. However, please check out
880:. Suspecting a copyright problem is not proof one has occured. Futhermore, if these are
762:
748:
653:
395:
325:
230:
129:
Aditionally information over Population,residents for surface in country and relationed
62:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Additiona information over foreing Commerce and Navigation
922:
720:
668:
643:
604:
594:
571:
538:
502:
450:
359:
310:
295:
286:
207:
188:
165:
155:
146:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data)
984:
824:
970:
898:
Spelling Mistakes was mentioned above, to which I need to add two comments. 1)
783:
747:. Clearly these are substandard, but this is grounds for cleanup, not deletion.
682:
501:
The correct course of action, marking them for cleanup, has already been done.
41:
993:
948:
906:
usages a lot in my 50 years, and so too have meanings changed. Take the term
860:
835:
797:
732:
709:
581:
474:
425:
376:
344:
580:
the information. Please do not throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater.
424:
unless Wikibofh rewrites them into English before the 5 day period is up.
884:, copyrights devolve to the translator, iirc, which makes Copyvio moot.
627:
558:
415:
40:
The result of the debate was - all kept, but need cleanup and renaming -
122:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Some comments of Japanese mining and Energy
98:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Additional information of Japanese industry
796:, Imperial Japan is extremely noteworthy, but repair the translations.
806:
I have worked on a few of these articles and have two strong concerns.
185:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Japanese Culture,religion and Education
164:
One may also want to keep an eye on other cotributions of the anon.
86:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Japanese Culture,religion and Education
992:
articles with incoherent, rambling, misspelled names and contents.
456:
Could I ask for clarification ? As a realtively new user, is it
522:
artilce in this condition don't belong in the main namespace. --
206:. If someone wants to work ith them, put into personal subpage.
110:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Comments of Japanese farmings
74:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Comments of Japanese Finanzes
57:
Additiona information over foreing Commerce and Navigation
616:
Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data)
141:
Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data)
48:
A series of articles on Imperial Japan in broken English
537:. I do not think complete deletion would be in order -
24:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Articles on Imperial Japan
229:
all. These all read like a bad Babelfish translation.
902:is an abstract ideal. Language drift has altered
547:all, articles aren't up to encyclopedic quality.
815:The contributor is highly prolific. A look at
8:
872:There is nothing wrong with tagging such as
447:Reformed Government of the Republic of China
275:Reformed Government of the Republic of China
701:proper japan,Manchuria and Russian Siberia.
117:Some comments of Japanese mining and Energy
93:Additional information of Japanese industry
154:are inadmissible in main article space.
449:in the 5 day window (now at 4 days :)
183:No I did not. see, eg my nomination at
81:Japanese Culture,religion and Education
414:and resubmit in the English language.
7:
817:User:Charles_Matthews/Imperial_Japan
273:.) Personally I've been working on
267:User:Charles_Matthews/Imperial_Japan
1002:and cleanup, that is the Wiki way.
483:Thank you for the clarification --
277:. You can see my discussion with
31:
947:. These articles are impossible.
638:i cleaned up one of the articles
804:Userfy / Move to temporary space
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
105:Comments of Japanese farmings
69:Comments of Japanese Finanzes
1019:Please do not edit this page
358:that Charles Matthews has.
36:This page is no longer live.
1039:
979:. There are articles like
44:13:49, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
1009:14:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
445:I couldn't even clean up
281:about this subect in the
996:22:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
973:22:31, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
963:03:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
852:02:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
827:23:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
712:17:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
663:15:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
646:14:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
622:13:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
480:13:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
465:07:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
431:05:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
298:13:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
259:03:13, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
171:01:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
161:01:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
953:21:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
941:04:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
925:00:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
866:17:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
838:01:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
800:17:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
790:07:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
772:01:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
755:00:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
735:01:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
723:20:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
685:15:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
671:09:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
630:17:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
607:13:01, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
597:10:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
587:10:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
574:10:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
551:09:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
541:08:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
526:07:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
516:06:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
505:06:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
487:15:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
453:14:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
418:04:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
405:03:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
379:02:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
362:20:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
347:17:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
335:15:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
313:14:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
289:03:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
223:01:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
213:01:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
194:17:27, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
263:Exteremly Strong Keep!
217:Delete the whole bunch
981:Japanese expansionism
279:User:Charles Matthews
304::My problem with
256:
249:
242:
238:
234:
22:(Redirected from
1030:
1020:
900:Correct Spelling
850:DirectorStratton
770:
765:
689:Delete or Userfy
661:
656:
620:Charles Matthews
569:
566:
563:
403:
398:
333:
328:
257:
254:
250:
247:
243:
240:
236:
232:
179:Charles Matthews
27:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1018:
961:Oleg Alexandrov
768:
763:
659:
654:
567:
564:
561:
535:Empire of Japan
468:Precedent says
401:
396:
331:
326:
253:
246:
231:
221:Captain Disdain
50:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1036:
1034:
1025:
1024:
1011:
1010:
997:
974:
969:and clean up.
964:
954:
942:
928:
927:
926:
896:
889:
867:
854:
853:
839:
822:
821:
813:
808:
807:
801:
791:
773:
756:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
725:
724:
705:
704:
703:
694:
693:
686:
679:Temporary keep
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
633:
632:
631:
611:Keep, clean up
608:
598:
588:
575:
552:
542:
527:
517:
514:Idont Havaname
506:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
485:Simon Cursitor
463:Simon Cursitor
454:
433:
432:
419:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
364:
363:
349:
348:
339:
338:
337:
336:
315:
314:
291:
290:
271:Nakamura_Diary
260:
224:
214:
200:
199:
198:
197:
196:
195:
151:
150:
149:
148:
138:
137:
136:
126:
125:
124:
114:
113:
112:
102:
101:
100:
90:
89:
88:
78:
77:
76:
66:
65:
64:
49:
46:
39:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1035:
1023:
1021:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1005:
1001:
998:
995:
991:
986:
982:
978:
975:
972:
968:
965:
962:
958:
955:
952:
950:
946:
943:
940:
939:Pufferfish101
936:
932:
929:
924:
920:
915:
911:
910:
905:
901:
897:
894:
890:
886:
885:
883:
879:
875:
871:
868:
865:
862:
859:
858:Strong delete
856:
855:
851:
848:
843:
840:
837:
833:
830:
829:
828:
826:
818:
814:
810:
809:
805:
802:
799:
795:
792:
789:
785:
781:
777:
774:
771:
766:
760:
757:
754:
750:
746:
743:
742:
734:
729:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
714:
713:
711:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
695:
690:
687:
684:
680:
677:
670:
665:
664:
662:
657:
651:
648:
647:
645:
641:
637:
634:
629:
624:
623:
621:
617:
612:
609:
606:
602:
599:
596:
592:
589:
586:
583:
579:
576:
573:
559:
556:
553:
550:
546:
543:
540:
536:
531:
528:
525:
521:
518:
515:
510:
507:
504:
500:
497:
496:
486:
482:
481:
479:
476:
471:
467:
466:
464:
459:
455:
452:
448:
444:
440:
437:
436:
435:
434:
430:
427:
423:
420:
417:
413:
410:Again I say,
409:
408:
407:
406:
404:
399:
393:
378:
373:
368:
367:
366:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
351:
350:
346:
341:
340:
334:
329:
322:
319:
318:
317:
316:
312:
307:
303:
300:
299:
297:
293:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
261:
258:
251:
244:
228:
225:
222:
218:
215:
212:
209:
205:
202:
201:
193:
190:
186:
182:
181:
180:
176:
175:
174:
173:
172:
170:
167:
162:
160:
157:
147:
144:
143:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:
130:
127:
123:
120:
119:
118:
115:
111:
108:
107:
106:
103:
99:
96:
95:
94:
91:
87:
84:
83:
82:
79:
75:
72:
71:
70:
67:
63:
60:
59:
58:
55:
54:
53:
47:
45:
43:
37:
25:
19:
1017:
1014:
1004:Paul August
999:
989:
985:Meiji period
976:
966:
956:
944:
934:
930:
918:
913:
908:
907:
903:
899:
892:
882:translations
881:
877:
873:
869:
857:
846:
841:
831:
823:
803:
793:
779:
775:
758:
744:
717:bibliography
715:Here is the
699:
688:
678:
649:
635:
610:
600:
590:
577:
554:
544:
529:
519:
508:
498:
469:
457:
442:
438:
421:
411:
391:
389:
388:
356:bibliography
354:Here is the
320:
305:
301:
262:
226:
216:
203:
163:
152:
51:
35:
33:
893:ultra-rapid
749:··gracefool
372:User:Wlad k
549:JamesBurns
204:Delete all
780:engineers
557:the lot.
283:talk page
923:Fabartus
721:Wikibofh
669:Nateji77
644:Nateji77
605:Lochaber
595:Jamyskis
539:Skysmith
503:Almafeta
451:Wikibofh
360:Wikibofh
311:Wikibofh
296:Nateji77
287:Wikibofh
919:English
904:correct
832:Comment
825:Tobycat
769:focused
660:focused
650:Comment
636:Comment
530:Cleanup
443:*laugh*
439:Comment
402:focused
332:focused
321:Comment
302:Comment
990:delete
977:Delete
971:DS1953
949:Jayjg
945:Delete
909:Wicked
842:Delete
784:Calton
776:Delete
683:Karada
591:Delete
582:Pcb21|
555:Delete
545:Delete
520:Userfy
509:Userfy
475:Pcb21|
458:policy
422:Delete
412:delete
392:Userfy
306:Userfy
227:Delete
42:SimonP
994:Ben-w
957:Keeep
878:clean
874:stubs
861:drini
836:Tabor
733:Tabor
710:Tabor
524:nixie
499:Keep.
377:Tabor
345:Tabor
255:EMAIL
208:mikka
189:mikka
166:mikka
156:mikka
16:<
1000:Keep
983:and
967:Keep
935:have
931:Keep
870:Keep
798:~~~~
794:Keep
788:Talk
759:Keep
745:Keep
640:here
601:Keep
585:Pete
578:Keep
572:Talk
478:Pete
426:Rick
248:TALK
914:Bad
628:EDM
416:EDM
241:01D
211:(t)
192:(t)
169:(t)
159:(t)
876:,
786:|
764:Un
708:--
655:Un
570:|
560:—
512:--
470:no
461:--
441::
397:Un
375:--
343:--
327:Un
324:--
285:.
1022:.
1007:☎
864:☎
753:☺
751:|
568:P
565:I
562:J
429:K
390:*
239:я
237:D
235:и
233:A
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.