Talk:Glacier

Lambert ice shelf

203.177.168.235 dumped the following at the bottom of the page:

Lambert ice shelf is known as the largest gacier in the world. It has a height of 250 miles and is 402 kilometers long.

That may be so, but it'll need some editing before it goes in the main article (height 250 miles?). I haven't the time right now so I moved it here. JTN 19:15, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

The Lambert glacier feeds the L ice shelf. 250 miles is about 402 km? William M. Connolley 21:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Consolidate?

Glacier Motion might needs to be integrated with glacier motion. The one I translated from es.wikipedia.com is more on why glaciers move, glacier motion describes historic movements and landscap transformation as result of the movement.

Maybe the articles should be consolidated. --JuanPDP 06:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think the glacial motion section should stay here; it fits within the scope of the article. However, the Quaternary and ice age sections should be merged into those respective articles. - mako 21:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap between Es. and En. glacier articles

I just translated the "formation of glaciers" section and only after I was done did I bother to look at the English article already extant. It seems like we've got a significant amount of overlap between the English and Spanish articles, so what I'm going to do is excise the redundant Spanish paragraphs after I salvage any extra information. Might take a bit. Sadly, the paragraph I translated is going to have to go almost in its entirety. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

¿radicación?

I left the following message on the es talk page:

"radicación solar": ¿se debe decir "radiación solar"? (Estamos traduciendo el artículo al inglés; favor de responder, o en inglés o en español, en la página en:talk:Glacier). Grácias.

Basically asking for clarification on what I think was a typo for the Spanish equivalent of "solar radiation". radicación is a word, but not one that makes sense to me in this context. Jmabel | Talk 05:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was a typo and it should read "radiación solar" (solar radiation) as it does now. Thanks for pointing it out. --Balderai 05:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whats going on then?

Does this spanish translation project really work by dumping a pile of spanish text into the en: pages and then slowly translating it out? That seems a rather poor way of working, because it trashes the article while you're working on it. Why isn't it done on a copy on the talk page or something? William M. Connolley 09:21:00, 2005-07-25 (UTC).

That is more or less exactly how it works. There's a note at the top of the page to warn the unsuspecting visitor that the page is going to be in flux for the week. Fernando Rizo T/C 15:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

English and español on the front page

Come on, people. It's not that terrible to see Spanish in an article temporarily, is it? At least r3m0t's preserved the Spanish text somewhere; however, even that solution is suboptimal, because there's no indication of where those pieces fit in to the original article. This morning, I started translating a section where the last translator stopped mid-paragraph. How would I know where the rest of that paragraph was supposed to go, or even that it was part of another paragraph, if it weren't already embedded in the article?

Spanish Translation of the Week has always worked by taking an entire article from sp.wikipedia.org, pasting it into the corresponding space here, and then translating it piece by piece. It takes about a week or so to complete the translation, and then we move on to the next article. (There's a history of past collaborations at Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week/History.) It is, IMO, the simplest, quickest, least confusing way to do this work. Can we continue to work that way here? If not, why not? --Skoosh 17:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that this is the simplest or quickest or least confusing way to do the work. It does a terrible disservice to the readers, who are viewing this page by the thousands while you're making this kind of a mess. Just a few weeks ago Steve Jobs put the WP article tiger on a giant screen in front of hundreds of reporters - what kind of impression would it have made if the article were in Spanish or Russian or Malay at that point? It would have been just as easy to make a temp page, put a note at the top of the real article warning not to edit randomly because the temp page was going to become the real thing in a week or so. Doesn't anybody think about the readers anymore? Stan 18:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a matter that potentially impacts this project in general, it's probably more appropriate to continue this on the W:SPATRA talk page, where there is already an ongoing discussion on the same issue. --Skoosh 19:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, it doesn't bother me as far as browsing goes to see the Spanish mixed in. However another issue is snapshots / dumps of WikiPedia used on disconnected devices, like Pocket PCs. Those types of conversions occur infrequently, so you would have these "translation in progress" articles mucking things up a bit. --Dan East 20:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

It was me that removed the spanish text from the article, and I realise now that I should have copied it somewhere. For not doing this I apologise, but you have understand that an article on the english wikipedia cannot be filled with spanish text! The main article space is entirely devoted to the readers, not the editors. You have to realise that like 99% of everyone that reads wikipedia is not an editor, they couldn't care less about WP:SPATRA. What kind of image does it present of wikipedia when they see a page like this? Many people even disagree that a COTW tag should be on the article! Why don't you work on it at Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week/Glacier and translate there, and when you are done copy it into the article. That, or you could make a Talk: sub-page like Talk:Glacier/Spanish text and do it there. Again, I apologise for not doing this myself, I just figured one of you guys would be more comfortable doing it since it is your project. How about it? gkhan 21:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC) NB: I am not critical of the project itself, infact, I think it is marvelous idea. Keep up the good work.

I have proposed a solution here. Please leave your comments so that we may reach a consensus. — J3ff 01:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

gkhan, if you are "not critical of the project itself", couldn't you have commented out the material instead of deleting it? Because I promise, now that it is physically removed from the page, almost none of the participants in the translation project are going to find it anywhere else. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I could have, had I thought of it :P Again I apologise for acting a little rash, but it's not like the text has disappeared or anything, it is in the history. And really, I think it is a great project, it was just the method I had concerns with. gkhan 07:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Translation of special terms

Roca aborregada

What is the proper term for this in English? Here's a translation of the relevant passage, found under "Glacial Erosion":

=== Rocas aborregadas === 
These are formed by the passage of a glacier as it carves small hills out of protrusions 
in the bedrock.  A protrusion of this type is known as a ''[[roca aborregada]]''.  ''Rocas 
aborregadas'' are formed when glacial abrasion polishes the smooth incline that faces the 
glacial ice next to it, and erosion increases the steepness of the opposite side 
proportionately as the ice passes over the protrusion.  These rocks indicate the direction 
of the glacier's flow.

"Roca" means "rock", and "aborregada", from what I gather, means "fleecy", or "like a sheep". Is this section talking about striation, or something else? --Skoosh 15:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard that word in my life. I hope we can get an actual geologist to comment on what this might be. I'll leave a message on William M. Connolley's talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a geologist, but I have climbed in the French alps. It might well be what the French call a "roche moutonnee"... http://www.zephryus.demon.co.uk/geography/resources/glaciers/stria.html. I rather suspect that the English take over the french word. William M. Connolley 20:33:06, 2005-07-30 (UTC).

I don't know enough Spanish, but yes, rouche moutonnee is the English term for a glacial rock formation. --- hike395

USGS: "Roche Moutonnée: An elongated, rounded, asymmetrical, bedrock knob produced by glacier erosion. It has a gentle slope on its up-glacier side and a steep- to vertical-face on the down-glacier side." [1] There also is mention of "sheepback". [2] (SEWilco 02:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Right! I had forgotten about "sheepback". Quick Google check of "Roche moutonnee +glacier" yields 395 hits, while "sheepback + glacier" yields 25. So, roche moutonnée is probably preferred. -- hike395 03:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

arranque

I've only encountered this word ("start" or "impulse") in the context of starting a car. So far, I've been eliding it, or replacing it with "motion" or "surge" or something else that flows naturally in context. I'm not sure if there's a specific term in English-language glaciology to replace it. Ideas? --Skoosh 15:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]