Talk:OmegaT

Requested move

• [[talk:Wikipedia:Leuce/OmegaT]]--Wikipedia:Leuce/OmegaT → OmegaT … Rationale: The current OmegaT page is basically the readme.txt file of the program, which was temporarily put up. The contents of this new version was extensively discussed on the OmegaT user group, and some of the developers also took part in the discussion to ensure that the information is accurate. — leuce 08:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 06:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to applaud the cooperation that made the new article happen .. Lovely :) GerardM 00:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding two issues

Regarding the following contents:

However, the tags exported don't contain the actual formatting information from the source document, so its use is rather limited.

This is irrelevant since what matters is the contents of the _source_ tags and the fact that OmegaT's TMX matches them _formally_. Eventually the target tags (TMX compliant hence full matches will be generated against source) will be relaced by the source tags which will produce the expected code.

Regarding the following contents:

Embedded OLE objects, page headers and page footers are not supported.

Embedded OLE objects are supported as long as they are converted to OOo format during the conversion (there are settings for that). They can be translated just like any other OOo file.

Regarding headers and footers, this is supposed to have been fixed last summer with the new rewrite of the OOo filter. Buggy ?

Modification of the fork item

216.252.85.232 has decided to edit the fork item to put it between tools created by OmegaT contributors and TMX creation tools.

The point is of course that omegat+ being an obsolete fork, it cannot be useful to OmegaT users. Hence the positioning at the bottom of the "relatd software" item. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc helary (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

OmegaT+ is not obsolete, it just happens to take time to develop software. New versions of OmegaT+ are becoming available. Therefore, the preceding comment is invalid. Also, you will note that JC Helary has a long history of harrassing the OmegaT+ project and has even vandalised entries about OmegaT+ on Wikipedia (yet remarkably he is not banned!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.84.157 (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all software under "related" software can be used with the current version of OmegaT. Besides, software does not have to be mutually compatible to be "related". The usefulness of mentioned "related" software to users of the current product is irrelevant.--leuce 20:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The current re-wording of the omegat+ item is a revertion to an old version that was not deemed exact and was replaced by the item as it was before 216.252.85.232. omegat+ is not an improved version of OmegaT. It is at best a downgraded version of OmegaT 1.4.5 and the next to come releases only exist as vaporware.

Correction: OmegaT+ still exists and has new versions. The preceding comment is just propaganda to drive people away from trying OmegaT+.

Instead of parasiting OmegaT's page, maybe it is time to create a omegat+ page on wikipedia to transfer the propaganda there.

The wording of the fork section must be objective and accurate. Though there is no proof that it is 'improved', one can't say that it is 'downgraded' either (a product is not necessarily considered "better" simply because it is more complex or has more features, nor can it be considered "poorer" just because it is simpler or has less features).

As for the trademark registration, that has not yet been proven. If it can be proven, one might change the wording on the article slightly to reflect the fact.--leuce 20:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In regard to trademark, OmegaT has a registered trademark in Germany. Nonetheless, it promotes itself as having an international trademark. Thus, it deliberately attempts to mislead the public as to the correct situation.

adding Ja:OmegaT link

{{Editprotected}} add ja:OmegaT

done. CMummert · talk 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Status and mention of OmegaT+

In my opinion, OmegaT+ is a fork of OmegaT and therefore deserves mention on the OmegaT page. It is the only fork of OmegaT that is currently distributed under its own name, at a separate Sourceforge account. The forking caused quite a stir, and thus has news value. OmegaT+ is not "obsolete" (whatever that means in this context).

It is a known fact that the trade mark registration has been disputed by the creator of OmegaT+, and the OmegaT team has done nothing to prove otherwise (they are under no obligation to do so, either). However, the fact that the registration is publically disputed by a relevant roleplayer, and the fact that the dispute has not been discredited, makes it "disputed" as far as Joe Public is concerned. --leuce 15:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides for the "news" value (and one could argue that it is all old news since the fork has not produced any improvements over OmegaT since it was created) it is arguable that the fork is published under "its own name": the names vary depending on the mood of the forker: omepatplus/OmegaT+/omega t+ and systematically relate to the OmegaT project to confuse the user. The last move from the forker is to call its fork's main application "omegat" which is exactly the name under which the OmegaT project is registered on SourceForge.

This last paragraph is a complete case of propaganda against OmegaT+. The OmegaT+ project changes the name as it suits development. In certain places (e.g., web address/links) it is impossible to use the term "OmegaT+" due to certain limitations beyond the control of the project. Therefore, "omegatplus" is found in certain situations. The current name of the fork is OmegaT+ and there is no intention to change the name of the application given its current architecture, etc.

The contents of the project is an obsolete version of OmegaT 1.4.5: by obsolete I mean not up to date with the various bugfixes and added functions that make OmegaT the free CAT of choice for translators. I also mean that the other software "distributed" by OmegaT is software already available from different places _without any significant improvement_ (except -?- for the compression scheme). Basically there is no technical value whatsoever to the fork, except its annoyance value, and I'd argue that user deserve more that being advertized a package that claims to provide significant improvements when in facts it only provides a down graded experience as far as the "translation editor" soft omegat is concerned. As for the rest of the software, the release notes for a number of them on the fork's SourceForge page do not mention any authorship or licensing information, again, in a move to confuse the users.

It is a known fact that the forker has repeatedly refused to accept providing a naming that would not confuse users. Similarly the OmegaT team has done sufficiently to protect the registered trademark: the OmegaT+ page has been erased from Wikipedia, the user laseray has been banned for vandalism.

This last paragraph is a complete lie. I (laseray) was not banned for vandalism, but because I chose to create a Wikipedia page that was thought to be spam. The actual fact is that I wanted a page like OmegaT for OmegaT+. I created it and then OmegaT types made complaints. So it is funny that when I do the same thing as them it is considered spam, but their page is perfectly okay in spite of the fact that it was created by those closely associated with OmegaT and is maintained by them also. Nothing like unbiased judgments, eh Wikipedia. Oh yeah, there are some people involved in Wikipedia/Wiktionary that are closely associated with OmegaT--can you say conflict of interest!).

The registration is disputed by the only person who decided from the beginning to infringe on OmegaT's right to protect its name. The registration data is publicaly available for people who know where to look at and is provided to parties that are related to the infringement case, along with the documentation that proves that the forker has knowingly used the trademark and has systematically refused to consider proposing a different name (as well as denying the right of the OmegaT project to register its trademark).

More lies. OmegaT only has a registered trademark in Germany. It does not apply internationally. A clear case of misleading the public by OmegaT. Also, it is high questionable as to the ethics of OmegaT to mix commercial concerns of trademark with free software. They do not mix properly regardless of what anyone thinks. Why would they need that if it is free software that they do not sell or make any direct revenue from. Trademarks are intended for commercial enterprises--OmegaT is not one of them.

To summarize my position: when the fork was first published, its technical status was equivalent to the current version of OmegaT and thus its mention on the OmegaT page had real value (which I never argued against after we first settled that). Since then (more than 2 years ago) the fork has not produced any improvement, the fork claims "the next version" will improve the current OmegaT without providing any code to prove such claims, the fork has totally failed to build a user base and a community on which to thrive, the forker has repeatedly vandalized various articles on Wikipedia where OmegaT was mentioned to the point of writing false information to further confuse users, and it has even started to take similar positions on professional translator's fora (Proz for ex).

More lies. Certain OmegaT types continually vandalize information about OmegaT+ and publicly slander me (laseray) on various public forums, email groups, etc. I have been forced into a position of combat by this and have managed to fend off these fools. They seem to think they are right about everything, but I have managed to get them shut up on more than one public forum.

Considering the current state of the fork, I consider it has lost any informative value on the OmegaT article at Wikipedia and the fork should be considered dead for all practical purposes. When the fork provides the new code (in whatever form) then it will be another matter. The OmegaT page should not be a place to confuse readers and should not be a place that promotes vaporware.

Jc helary 00:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

JC Helary is the biggest instigator of problems, not only for OmegaT+, but for OmegaT. If it were not for his trouble making I (laseray) would not have created OmegaT+. If it were not for him calling me a thief because I created a fork (100% legal under GPL) a lot of arguments and problems could have been avoided. If it were not for OmegaT trying to steal my work on documentation for version 1.4.5 they would not have had to rewrite their whole documentation for 1.6. And so on. So the fact is that they are not squeaky clean in any of these matters.

Article is a clear case of self-promotion via SPAM. Editors are members of the OmegaT project or closely related. Jc helary is an OmegaT project member. See http://sf.net/projects/omegat for a list of members who have edited these pages. This is against Wikipedia policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SPAM).

I disagree. This article is written in a neutral style and contains facts. The editors of this article are members of the OmegaT project, yes, and that gives them the advantage of knowing what they're talking about and being able to spot vandalism more easily. It is not against Wikipedia rules to be affiliated to articles one edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leuce (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is clearly a case of self-promotion by OmegaT people. The article is very long and detailed, and yet the software in question is basically a barely-functioning piece of junk used by only a few extremists. This is an advert and it is spam. --Flash gormless 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree more with that. Shameless self-promotion by OmegaT extremists. I (laseray) created an OmegaT+ page because I thought it was okay, since they did it. Then once I read the real rules of Wikipedia I realized that it is indeed spam to do that yourself. Had I read that in advance I would not have created a page. Thus, OmegaT should not have a page either by its own hand. I notified Wikipedia of this, but unsurprisingly they did nothing about it. Looks like a clear case of bias to me.

I don't know if this helps but I'm using it too for some time now. Also I would be rather interested to see what alternatives for translator tools are out there, so far I only found OmegaT to suit me, and believe me I did search for tools to help me translate from English to Romanian. But so far I stuck with this one, because it's free and configurable. But as I said I'm open to choices, but for that we need more articles like this, not less. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Language Support

It might be useful to list any challenging languages or language types (ideographic or right-to-left, for example) that OmegaT can or can't support, and give some idea of how many languages it can support. Presumably it can support all the languages in which it has been localised. Ma1cius (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The so-called "Project"

There is no such thing as a "The OmegaT Project" that is "a sort of “computer literacy” group that focus on translators' needs." The current citation merely links to the software's "getting involved" page. Most if not all opensource software projects have such pages, and the fact that you can get involved does not constitute a formal "project" that is separate from the normal community involvement of the software itself. Referring to a thing called "The OmegaT Project" here implies that there is a separate project (either run by the OmegaT developers, or that had adopted the OmegaT software as a funded sub-project), and it isn't that. In fact, "it" doesn't exist (or if it does, then there is no proof of it, and the cited reference certainly does not support what was written about this "The OmegaT Project". -- leuce (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

THat's yet another case of "you don't know what you are talking about" Samuel. OmegaT is systematically introduced as part of the "OmegaT Project". And the "project" activity is indeed described in "getting involved". The fact that other software activity groups do not call themselves "project" is irrelevant. Jean-Christophe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc helary (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You write: OmegaT is systematically introduced as part of the "OmegaT Project". I'm not sure what you mean by "systematically", but it would appear as if you're saying that the development of the software is a sub-project of a larger project called "The OmegaT Project". I find no confirmation of this notion anywhere. Things I would typically look for to confirm the existence of a project include information about the project's objectives, its goals, its progress, its leaders, annual reports or status reports, mention in the media, etc. The "project" you mention does not have any of this.

You write: And the "project" activity is indeed described in "getting involved". The section on Wikipedia (as of date) describes the "project" as "The OmegaT Project is also a sort of “computer literacy” group that focus on translators' needs." but nothing in the "getting involved" page says anything like that.

You write: The fact that other software activity groups do not call themselves "project" is irrelevant. I believe it is relevant what readers of the Wikipedia would understand, and by referring to "The OmegaT Project" in that way you create the impression that it is different from the usual mere community involvement that other software development projects have. -- leuce (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the dispute, please see:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disputed_statement
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

To my understanding of the guidelines about disputed sections, the section in question is a legitimate disputed section, and it should be resolved using the stated procedures (and not by someone just removing the tag because he disagrees that there is a dispute). -- leuce (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that is exactly what I suggest. As free software, OmegaT is implicitly a software that aims are providing users with the intellectual tools they need to learn how to program/contribute and help each other by contributing back. The fact that other projects do not state that explicitly may affect the ability of Wikipedia readers to actually understand what is at stake when they use free software so it is important to make that statement explicitly, since that reflects the reality of what happens on the user list and in other parts of the activity of the OmegaT Project. Jc helary (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

1. What you're saying is that the purpose of OmegaT is to foster opensource software contribution among users by providing them with a sample program, and that sample program happens to be OmegaT. In my opinion, OmegaT's primary purpose is to be a CAT tool and not to be a training ground for volunteers and contributors.

2. Whether what you're saying is so or not, the fact is that the web site you're linking to doesn't say this (or anyting close to it). The fact that there is a "how to contribute" page doesn't mean that the project's primary aim is to encourage contribution. The fact that there are instructions about how to contribute doesn't mean that inviting contributions is a "project" all on its own. The point is that the cited reference does not support what is written in the article -- leuce (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that Jc helary typically spreads propaganda about OmegaT claiming it is more than it is, better than it is. The purpose of OmegaT is to be a tool first, it is a side issue whether people choose to start contributing scripts or other additions. It is definitely not the main purpose of the program to have people use it as a training ground for programming of the tool itself. A neutral representation of the facts is missing, being skewed to make the program sound bigger than it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.94.226 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Logo

OmegaT uses a number of logos. The one used for the Mac version is different from the one used in the Windows version for ex. The official site uses yet another one. Where is the requirement that the Wikipedia page should use the one specifically on the "About" page of the application ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc helary (talk • contribs) 22:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason that software programs' logos are displayed on their Wikipedia pages is for recognition purposes. The "logo" isn't simply any nice picture that is used to make the article prettier. The picture reverted to is not used *anywhere* in OmegaT as a logo. The official site doesn't use a logo at all (it uses an image at the top of the page, but that is hardly a "logo"). If it is true that the Mac has a different logo, then upload the logo and put it alongside the Windows logo. -- leuce (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Panes or windows

Someone changed my "panes" to "Winows". On Microsoft Windows, OmegaT runs as a single window with several panes inside it. Is it different on other OSes? Does OmegaT have separate windows on Mac, for example? -- leuce (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone is me, as the history can tell you. And the terms "window" and "pane" are confusing. I strongly suggest we adapt emacs terminology with "frame" and "window" if we need to make a distinction between the two "things". Jc helary (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

OmegaT is not related to Emacs at all, and Emacs has a rather small user base, so I doubt if Emacs terminology will be the mainstream terminology (even among OmegaT users). Anyway, I'm not sure if the difference is that important (though clearly it was important to you, or you would not have changed it). -- leuce (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

These should not be changed to Windows, they are not Windows at all. They are actually panels, but panes is a very similar thing within the actual (Swing) framework used to make the program. There is no reason in the world to use Emacs terminology, that is just obtuse. A consistent representation across platforms should be strived for, with some allowances where it is reasonable. It is not reasonable to change panes to Windows because Windows have very specific features that the inner panels in the program do not have, even when floating detached outside the main window (and even on Mac OS X). It is called terminology, use the right one. You have to understand what you are talking about when you messing with program specific issues, that is best left to developers. Let them tell you what the proper terms are, then make changes as directed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.94.226 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Other CAT tools section

User:Jc_helary removed this:

OmegaT typically cannot translate the proprietary file formats of other CAT tools, such as TTX from Trados, ITD from SDLX, TXML from Wordfast, or XLF bundles from Idiom. Some of these formats can be handled by OmegaT in limited circumstances, if converted to a format that OmegaT supports.

saying:

other cat tools format" section since they typically correspond to the "xliff" section

but (a) the XLIFF section doesn't mention these formats and (b) do we have references to support the idea that all of these formats (in limited cases) can be converted using Rainbow's XLIFF procedure? -- leuce (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.articlesbase.com/corporate-articles/free-open-source-translation-memory-software-omegat-vs-anaphraseus-tm-1472085.html

  Triggered by \barticles(?:base|vana)\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Mysterious Matter of the Missing CafeTran

I don't know how much of this you may have been following, but there are strange powers at work here on Wikipedia. For several years now, people have been trying to create a page for CafeTran. However, no matter what people do, the page is blocked every step of the way. Now, I know that if you are a professional translator, you will probably have heard of CafeTran by now. Hell, Proz.com, the largest platform for translators in the world offers it for free now as part of their Plus Package!

Anyway, the Wikipedia goblins have since removed ALL traces of all the hard work that we but into trying to create a page for CafeTran. Have a look at what is left:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafetran_Espresso
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cafetran_Espresso

Then go to:

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_computer-assisted_translation_tools

… and look at all the CAT tool that ARE allowed to have their own pages:

• Across (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Across_Language_Server)
• Crowdin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdin)
• Déjà Vu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9j%C3%A0_Vu_(software))
• GlobalSight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalSight)
• Gtranslator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gtranslator)
• MateCat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MateCat)
• memoQ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MemoQ)
• MetaTexis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaTexis)
• OmegaT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OmegaT)
• Open Language Tools (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Language_Tools)
• Phrase (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrase_(software))
• Poedit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poedit)
• Pootle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pootle)
• SDL Trados Studio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDL_Trados_Studio)
• SmartCat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmartCAT)
• Virtaal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtaal)
• Wordfast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordfast)

What on earth is going on here?

If CafeTran is not ‘notable’ (I think that was their main reason for now allowing a page about it), then it would stand to reason that most of the above CAT tool articles should also be deleted, right?

MichaelBeijer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)