Talk:Computer-assisted translation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Name and classification of this article[edit]

is that the same as Computer-aided translation? (clem 18:38, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I believe it's the same thing.
I get 25,200 Google hits for Computer Aided Translation, 16,900 for Computer-Assisted Translation. It think the former is more familiar; barring an objection I'll merge these two articles under the former, with a redirect from this page to Computer Aided Translation.
--babbage 08:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What is the difference between Software Localization Tools and Translation memory packages? 21:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
A lot of these seem to be geared towards translating software. Which, if any, are geared towards more general translations? (like, UN, legal pieces, science/journal articles, even fiction) It would be good to have a more detailed comparison of the open source contenders. 06:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
'Software Localization Tools' is a very broad name that refers to any tool used in the localization process of software. 'Translation memory packages' is a much narrower term referring to tools that store sentences (pairs) in databases, so that these can be compared (matched) on the fly with the current sentence needing translation. --Galious77 01:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
IMO some CAT tools can also be used in software l10n, but most software l10n tools can't be used for regular translation. --leuce 16:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OmegaT+ status[edit]

I don't know who is but OmegaT+ is not what he claims it to be.

OmegaT+ is an obsolete fork of OmegaT and does not support half the formats indicated here. Beside, OmegaT+ is _not_ listed anymore on the FSF free software directory while OmegaT is there, hence, it is arguable that OmegaT is "only" open source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc helary (talkcontribs) 14:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I've added a reference to the page describing the formats supported by OmegaT+. The page does not mention StarOffice, but I assume since OmegaT had supported StarOffice from a long time ago, support for it may also be present in OmegaT+. --leuce 16:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the systematic positioning of OmegaT+ _over_ OmegaT in the listings at the bottom of the page are clearly misleading. There are 11 members on the OmegaT+ user group and close to 600 on OmegaT. Can't we stop the joke ?

I do believe number of members is irrelevant; but IMO "OmegaT" is alphabetically higher than "OmegaT+" anyway, and should therefore be listed higher. --leuce 16:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Jc helary continually sabotages infomration on Wikipedia pages about OmegaT+ and removes it without cause. OmegaT+ is a legitimate fork of OmegaT in existence since 2005. That user is biased due to being a member of the OmegaT project. Further removal of information about OmegaT+ should be dealt with appropriately by sanctions against the perpetrator. A quick search on Google for OmegaT+ will show how much current and relevant information is available for said software. There is a systematic effort by that person and some others associated with OmegaT to discredit OmegaT+ even though it has many thousands of downloads, page links, numnerous users, and is highly functional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

TMX tools added[edit]

I've added some TMX tools to the Translation_Memory_eXchange page... please if you know of more such tools, please add them there.--leuce 15:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: more info in CAT compare table[edit]

I suggest we add a column in the CAT compare table in which the nature of the tool is mentioned. For example, ForeignDesk is a l10n tool, Okapi is a TM editing suite (AFAIK), OmegaT is a translation tool with fuzzy matching, etc. Only information that describes the nature of the tool should be mentioned in that column. --leuce 16:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the table should be on a separate page ("List of Computer-assisted Translation Tools" or some such?) --babbage (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, this table should only present the formats the software handles. I think the following sentennce should be erased from the SDL Trados entry since it contains superflous info: "Includes SDL MultiTerm for terminology management and Project Management Dashboard for automating tasks and tracking."--Daha6439 (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


i am looking for a translation - "ha molti talenti" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

wp:N use on this page[edit]

On January 25, Mootros made the following modifications:

supposedly based on the wp:N criteria.

The wp:n article:

The wp:n article specifically says:

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons."

Hence, the modifications are without basis and I am considering to revert them unless Mootros considers doing that himself.

If there are issues with some tools indicated in this list their case should be considered based on:

Since this article is used by a lot of new CAT tool users to determine what tool best suits them it is of the utmost importance that the article is maintained with all the seriousness required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc helary (talkcontribs) 01:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Jc helary and other associates of OmegaT should follow the same advice and refrain from removal of information about OmegaT+. All tools that are available should be listed in an impartial and unbiased manner. Any commentary about the usefulness of one tool over another has no place on this page because that is not the purpose of it. Users can make up their own minds about a tool given an adequate list of them. Removal of information about a specific tool is nothing more than a lack of neutrality. The perpetrators of such should be dealt with appropriately in accord with Wikipedia rules.-- (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the products without articles, again. The IP editor above is wrong in claiming that "All tools that are available should be listed ...": Wikipedia is not the place to list all such tools – that would make it a directory, which it is not. There's also the issue of advertising, and our guideline on external links to consider (particularly WP:ADV and parts of WP:ELNO). So bearing those restrictions in mind, and assuming that some detailed examples are useful within the article to demonstrate the types of tools that are available (which isn't a foregone conclusion, in my view) the only sensible criterion for inclusion would seem to be notability.
If the product you're interested in listing here is notable, you can ask someone to write an article about it, or write it yourself if you're not involved with the company concerned. There's also the Computer Aided Translation category at the Open Directory Project to which submissions can be made – this directory is linked at the bottom of our article.  —SMALLJIM  15:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of products without articles[edit]

This "removal of products without articles" lacks any common sense. It makes the Wikipedia article on Computer-assisted translation heavily biased. Why are you so eager to withhold information on a whole bunch of proprietary software products, Smalljim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljioshan (talkcontribs) 13:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, the article includes brief details of a selection of notable products for the purpose of illustrating the variety of what is available. There's no intention or need to list all available products because Wikipedia isn't a directory and it doesn't do advertising – see my posting just above.
I can see that looked at from the point of view of someone who's closely involved with a product that isn't included, the article may seem to be "heavily biased", but that's an illusion based on a misconception of what Wikipedia is (it's an encyclopedia).  —SMALLJIM  17:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
SMALLJIM, can you please be a bit more specific on Wikipedia not being a directory: which of the eight points listed under WP:NOTDIR are you referring to? Ljioshan (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
"The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." (Introductory paragraph). See, it's the underlying principle that matters - the spirit of the law if you like! If you think about it, it's common sense too: imagine what Wikipedia would look like if we allowed editors to add details of their favoured commercial products to articles - it would turn into a trade or business directory, and - I'll say it again - that's not what Wikipedia is. Now let me ask you a question in return: why are you so concerned about which products are or aren't included as examples here?  —SMALLJIM  00:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I see, examples are not intended to be exhaustive, but your arbitrary choice of products to be mentioned or to be banned creates a heavily biased picture of the tools available. Is that what you wish to create by strictly adhering to that underlying principle you quote? Wouldn't you agree that the spirit of the law is better represented by adhering to the core content policy that says "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." (WP:Neutral_point_of_view)? —Ljioshan (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
What "arbitrary choice" do you claim that I've made?  —SMALLJIM  21:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Smalljim, you continue to ask Ljioshan questions instead of simply allowing the community to post a more complete list of software. To answer one of your questions on her behalf: "why are you so concerned about which products are or aren't included as examples here?" Ljioshan is a professional translator and also a trainer for Wordfast, which is still on your list, so I cannot see that there is any conflict of interest by adding additional types of software she does not professionally represent. If she is taking the time to make the list more complete, she does so for the same reasons that everyone else at material to Wikipedia: to give the community a better understanding of an issue. To answer a second question you asked: "What 'arbitrary choice' do you claim that I've made?" Are you being serious? I run a (small) translation agency, and the range of TM software that I have to deal with in my weekly work is larger than the list you allow here. In fact, the list you allow is even shorter than the list of commonly used software given right below in the same entry. So I have a question for you: why don't you let the list grow? Even if the argument is that competing projects, such as DejaVu and Star Transit, do not have their own entry, allowing them to be on this overview will certainly help produce such dedicated Wikipedia entries. P.S. I have no regular business with Ljioshan and am merely a user of TM software. I have no financial interest. Petiteplanete (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining a few things, Petiteplanete - much appreciated. Although the evidence suggested otherwise, I'll take your word that Ljioshan only added memoQ on a "me too" basis (see below), rather than in an attempt at advertising.
So, if I'm actually talking to a couple of professional translators who have no commercial interest in any products, then I apologise for my earlier tone which was aimed at keeping advertising out of Wikipedia. But the principles that I set out above still stand. Let's clear up "arbitrary choice" first: all I did was remove the products (both free and commercial) that do not have articles here, leaving the ones that have already been accepted by our community as notable - hardly arbitrary! Now it's quite likely that we don't yet have articles on all CAT products that would pass our notability criterion, and if there had been some evidence (e.g. discussion on this page) that an attempt had been made to include the most relevant/important ones, with or without articles, then I probably wouldn't have acted at all. But the article history shows that products have been added piecemeal over a period of time with no attempt at selection - a clear sign that the article had fallen into the trap of being used as a directory (the thinking goes: "that product is listed, so why not add my company's/my favourite"). The next step would be removal of competitors' products on dubious grounds, and then we have a real edit war. It happens; we saw the beginnings of it above in relation to OmegaT+.
Anyway, that's why we include a link to the Open Directory Project (ODP), and also why we display categories at the bottom of articles to list the related notable topics. So, people coming to Wikipedia wanting to know about CAT can read the article, maybe see a few examples of what's available(*), and if they want more information, follow the ODP link for a directory listing, or look at the Computer-assisted translation category to see details of other programs that have been considered notable enough for inclusion. Not forgetting, which I did till just now, the See also items, the other external links and the link to the surprisingly comprehensive Wikibooks entry.
(*) Regarding examples, wouldn't it be an improvement to get rid of the list of tools altogether and include one or two products as examples under each of the listed concepts? As the article says, CAT is a diverse field and there appears to be a wide range of different types of programs. Also - is there a more up-to-date survey of the most popular systems? I guess the field has changed a lot in the last 5 years.
Finally, with your experience you could help Wikipedia by improving the text of the article (maybe including actual examples of a CAT translation vs. an MT one - Google translate doesn't do very well on "Les vers verts levèrent le verre vert vers le ver vert", for instance). Writing articles on other programs that would be notable enough would be good too. I can help with these ideas, if you want.  —SMALLJIM  15:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am another professional translator and I second Petiteplanete. I also think a list is very helpful. One place where a list can be found is at I would add Fluency - I know very little of it, but several translators in the USA have been writing about it recently. I also have no financial interest. Have been using STAR Transit for 14 years now and have found it more sophisticated than Trados. I don't know the latest versions of Trados, though. I only use a CAT tool for my own purposes, not for clients to receive. Transblawg

Answer to Smalljim's question "is there a more up-to-date survey of the most popular systems?": There is one survey with a strong Canadia focus, available at But there must be others, too.  —Ljioshan (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that survey. As you indicate, only 5% of its respondents were not from Canada so I guess its relevance to a global Wikipedia is limited. I've amended (and corrected) the existing Imperial College survey to make it less prominent, reflecting its age.  —SMALLJIM  18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A CATguru talks about four major CAT tools on "How much freelance translators typically pay for first-tier CAT tools (Déjà Vu, memoQ, Trados, Wordfast) [...]" (to these four, Déjà Vu by Atril should be added). I insist on my initial point: the Wikipedia article on Computer-assisted translation as it stands now is heavily biased. —Ljioshan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC).

Article titles[edit]

That survey that Ljioshan found (above) is interesting because it refers to CAT tools (e.g. SDL Trados) as being a separate class from text correction tools, terminology databases, bitext corpora and electronic referencing works, lumping them all together as "language technologies" (pages 7-8), whereas our article says that they are all CAT tools. On the other hand, on the internet generally, end-user tools such as SDL Trados seem to be most often referred to as "translation memory software" - i.e. programs that implement the translation memory concept.

This confusion over terminology is going to make it hard to write a clear article without taking a stance on definitions. What do others here think - are tools like SDL Trados, OmegaT etc. most accurately described as translation memory software? If so, perhaps any details of actual software should be moved to a section in the translation memory article (to which translation memory software already redirects), leaving this article to provide background, history (e.g. how CAT developed from machine translation), and pointers to more specific articles. Comments welcome.  —SMALLJIM  18:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

They are most commonly called CAT Tools, and there is no reason to change the article. The only reason why some people use "translation memory software" on the internet is for SEO purposes, when new translators who do not know what is a "CAT Tool" go searching for some software. Otherwise, maybe you should let people who have a better sense for this industry manage this page? Terminology databasing, for example, normally happens within the CAT Tool and is just a part of "computer-assisted translation". For example, with glossaries, the technology that runs the CAT and uses a translation memory simply does the same thing it does with the memory with the glossary - and using glossaries in such a manner can only be called "computer-assisted translation". You could write a separate entry on "terminology database" but there is no need to remove the entire CAT thing.

Finally, you come just short of accusing everybody who complained about the removal of tools as being the owners or employees of those companies, but of course I should like to mention that I have no idea who you are, and you could very well be working for or paid by SDL Trados. In fact, you have taken a very useful list, and you have turned it into an advertisement for a handful of companies. But of course you would deny that, whether or not you were working for SDL.

I am a customer of a software called Wordbee, and I will be editing their page to get it relisted. In the meantime, if you knew anything at all, you'd probably take a look at the software being monitored by an organization called "Common Sense Advisory". The companies included in their reports are generally speaking the most important. (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments in your first para about CAT tools: you're clearly well-versed in this field and I'm sure what you say makes a lot of sense to someone who's actually used these programs. I knew nothing about the topic at all until I came across this article while vandal-fighting in Dec. 2011, so I'd be more than happy if someone with a good knowledge of the subject decided to start improving the text. In that regard, can I ask if you think that the six headings under Concepts are still appropriate; I get the impression that CAT is a rapidly-changing field and wonder if those six concepts are still the best way to divide up the topic. I wonder also if the Range of tools section isn't at least a partial duplicate of Concepts – both sections have headings for "terminology managers/management" and "translation memory", for instance. Both those sections really need some references to show that they reflect what's been written about the topic by reliable sources, so if you're able to help there, that would be great too.
Too much time has been wasted in discussing the list of "Some notable CAT tools", and I now think it should be removed from this article altogether as what's in and out is always going to be bone of contention and Wikipedia's purpose is to explain/educate, not to be a list of what's available. However, if consensus is that we should have such a list, I propose that it's moved to a stand-alone comparative list similar to the one at Comparison of machine translation applications, if someone would be prepared to build it.
Regarding Wordbee, I've had a quick look on the internet and I still don't think there are enough reliable independent sources to show its notability, but if you can show that it is notable enough and want to re-create it, I'll help if I can. In case you've mislaid it, the deleted version was restored to User:Robert Rogge/sandbox, but you should probably re-read Jimfbleak's helpful comment at User talk:Robert Rogge before working on it, and consider our guidance regarding conflict of interest too.
Finally I mentioned the need to assume good faith in the edit comment to my last edit, but you probably ought to read WP:NPA too.  —SMALLJIM  20:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Some others CAT tool[edit]

Can I name some other CAT tools on the market.

 - Swordfish   — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC) 
 - Hearsome
 - Memo Q (
 - Wordbee Translator (
 - Lingotek (
 - XTM international (

In the recent years, with the development of cloud-computing, the web-based translation is now the trend of CAT tools, isn't it? I can state some of them developing on the CAT tool market : Lingotek, Wordfast everywhere, Wordbee and SDL... Should they name in the list?

Huy Quoc Nguyen Dang (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

List of CAT tools[edit]

I found that "Déjà Vu (" was missing in the list of CAT tools under the "Some notable CAT tools" section. And I normally use "across" ( How about adding "Déjà Vu" and "across" to the list? Trekkersky (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

and about MemoQ? Why not listed?[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computer-assisted translation. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)