Talk:las

In his last comment InfoSlave asked "There is no need for any translations in non-English sections is there?". I already thought about that a couple of times and my opinion is that if a non-English word has a direct translation to English it doesn't need any other translations. For example, the German word frei has exactingly the same meaning as the English free, so why duplicate the translations? It should be enough to know that frei means free. In another hand, I think that words that have no direct English translation could/should have translations in other languages. I'd like to know about other opinions on this issue. - hybrid-2k (2003.10.24)

Actually I meant it in a broader sence. Since this is the English wiktionary translations should only be needed for English entries (so English speakers can look up a translation). Foreign entries are described in English but should not need translations into N other languages. I think there are others that share this view, but I'm not sure if there's real consensus on this. If there is we should remove the translations in the frei example. InfoSlave 19:57, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I tend to agree with hybrid-2k; no need to endlessly duplicate translations for words that have a one on one relationship with their English counterparts. That quickly becomes unmaintainable anyway. Translations should be able to be added when it seems appropriate though.Polyglot 20:27, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)