Talk:Requests for new languages/Wikivoyage Norwegian

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I have tried to look at the templates listed here incubator:Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Wy/no. Did a few changes, but most of them did not contain any translatable text.

This whole series seems to consist of subtemplates called by Infobox templates for the purpose of formatting/customizing specific infoboxes. The "red link only" is usually for a documentation page that should eventually be created at Template:Wy/no/templateaddress/doc, so I'm not worried about those. See comment at the end about possible next steps on these.

This series seems to consist of Wikivoyage-specific templates, imported from English (and maybe Hebrew) Wikivoyage projects.

Stopping here, except for formatting links. See comments below.

--ツ regards. Dyveldi ☯ prat ✉ post 10:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modules, for the record:

StevenJ81 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of what is here (as well as at incubator:Special:PrefixIndex/Module:Wy/no) seems to be copied in directly from Norwegian Wikipedia or from mature Wikivoyage projects like English and Hebrew Wikivoyage. A number of these things do actually have content, but are often subtemplates that only show content when transcluded. These could really potentially be useful to someone wanting to restart this project.
The problem, though, is that there is no attribution here at all. Now, I know perfectly well that templates are often borrowed from other projects, or between tests on Incubator, and they are just not always attributed properly, even though that is technically a requirement of CC BY-SA 3.0. In many cases, it's just not feasible for sysops to consider going back to do that; a template like {{delete}} often just feels too much like part of the MediaWiki infrastructure for people to bother, or even to think about directly.
Still, I think it's problematic to leave these in place for future use when they are also technical copyvios. So here's what I'm going to propose:
  • I will create a list of the existing templates and modules in xml format, and upload that as a media file archive.
  • I will then delete the templates and modules (along with the rest of the test, per discussion).
  • On the left-behind infopage (incubator:Wy/no), I will note why the existing test was deleted, and will simply encourage a new community to start over. Still, in case anyone finds this discussion or the media file, I will be prepared to undelete templates and modules, provided that the person requesting promises to add attribution.
Reasonable? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very reasonable. Just for the future record in case any questions arises. We are talking about w:en:Attribution (copyright) which we can find a Norwegian counterpart of in w:no: Åndsverkloven of 2018 in § 5 [[1]] (navngivelsesplikten) which means that in Norway you are obliged to name the creator unless it is not practically possible. Same kind of rule, different country and different language. Norwegian readers can find a useful discussion on pages 261-266 in ISBN 9788215020990. This is a first for me that anyone on Wikipedia-project refers to attribution in copyright law. I do not think attribution is well known. Just look at all the illustrations in the articles on any Wikipedia with no creator named. w:en:Right to quote seems to be more popular. My unreserved compliments and thanks for the tip, I'll sit for an exam on friday and should know about attribution by then. If I stumble across questions about a new Norwegian Wikitravel project arises I'll tell them the first trial was shelved due to machine translations and no Norwegians. I hope it is ok to direct whoever has questions to this page and talk page (for as long as I remember where the site is). --ツ regards. Dyveldi ☯ prat ✉ post 20:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By all means direct people to this discussion. ;)
Even "right to quote" requires attribution. But, in particular, people tend to think that CC BY-SA 3.0 is the same as declaring the content "open source". But it's not. It most explicitly requires attribution in order to copy and use. Click here for details. That's why we make a point of bringing it up. StevenJ81 (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. You are very right to remind people of attribution and I'll make sure I will remember it now. I will on the right occations pass the message on. It is certainly important enought to warrant repetition. --ツ regards. Dyveldi ☯ prat ✉ post 09:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]