Talk:Comparison of computer-assisted translation tools

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Translation Studies, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Translation Studies. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.Translation studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Translation studiesTemplate:WikiProject Translation studiesTranslation studies
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Page name

I had a look at ‘Pairaphrase’, and as far as I can tell, it is not a CAT tool, but a corporate LSP of some kind. Can't actually tell at first glance, but it is definitely not a CAT tool for freelancers.

Michael Beijer Michael Beijer (talk)

---

I don't know if this page should be "Comparison of computer-assisted translation platforms " or resources or something like that. At least tools includes offline software and websites. Tentre (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This title seems like the right one to me. OnionRing (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of computer-assisted translation tools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww3.imperial.ac.uk%2Fportal%2Fpls%2Fportallive%2Fdocs%2F1%2F7307707.PDF&date=2009-09-18 with http://www.webcitation.org/5jsaMDqiR?url=http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/portal/pls/portallive/docs/1/7307707.PDF on http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/portal/pls/portallive/docs/1/7307707.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cafetran Espresso

I added an entry for Cafetran Espresso, which is one of the most versatile CAT tools, and has a growing userbase among professionals. For some reason MrOllie keeps deleting the entry, citing the software as not notable enough since it has not its own Wikipedia page. I do not discuss the latest, but having no Wikipedia page is not a proof of absence of notability. Anyone can check that Cafetran Espresso is a genuine CAT tool with a large body of users, just using a Google search. In addition the software is cited in other Wikipedia pages. I am sorry to have no time to create a page for the software now (I am not involved in its development). But the scarcity of CAT tools for Linux, in particular of the quality and breadth of Cafetran Espresso, means that the entry is particularly important. Nicolas Gambardella Le Novère (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the primary criterion for the presence of a Wikipedia article, so it makes an excellent proxy. But in lieu of an article, two independently written sources from outlets that meet our sourcing guidelines would be sufficient. In any case we should not include an external link to a product page. - MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is nonsense. Wikipedia is full of external links towards products and services. I reverted your deletion. These are close to be considered as vandalism IMHO Nicolas Gambardella Le Novère (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a big place with a lot to do, and there are only so many volunteers. Some links haven't been noticed yet. If you have noticed other inappropriate links, that is a reason to remove those links, not to add more. - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created a Wikipedia page about Cafetran Espresso. The external link has now been replaced by an internal one. Nicolas Gambardella Le Novère (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But FYI that new page is very likely to be deleted if you don't bring it in line with our minimal sourcing requirements. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it got moved to draft space for source additions instead. - MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transifex, Phrase and other online tools?

There are more modern tools that should be here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:877C:E200:FC71:B09F:DCAD:FA68 (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC) ...especially given that Google Translator Toolkit cites this page as a source for finding "many great tools" on its page explaining why it is closing down^[1].Mike Goodstadt (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Google Translator Toolkit is shutting down". Google. Google. Retrieved 1 December 2019.

The CafeTran Curse

So, no matter what we do or did, the powers that be here at Wikipedia (you know who you are) refuse to allow the creation of a proper page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cafetran_Espresso) for one of the translation industry's main CAT tools. Pretty much ALL other CAT tools are allowed to have their own pages, and are listed on this stupid page. Fucking hilarious. The idiots in charge of constantly deleting any reference to CafeTran obviously have zero knowledge about the modern translation industry, and are breaking the rules to please themselves. They can say what they want, and point to various Wikipedia rules, but the fact remains:

If all other equally relevant/important/noteworthy CAT tools are allowed to be listed on this page, and often get their own pages, CafeTran should be given the same treatment. Since it is being treated differently, we can only conclude that someone is playing god.

Anyway, there is currently a crowd-funded page trying to gain support for a very expensive curse to be sent their way. Please find this page via Google and consider donating so justice can be done. May those responsible cower in fear.

Michael Beijer (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Google Translator Toolkit is shutting down". Google. Google. Retrieved 1 December 2019.

[1]