On 11/8/05, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Do I need to state that I translated this article
from another
Wikipedia? -> Yes, but an edit summary suffices for that.
Does the article text itself need to state that it was originally a
translation from another Wikipedia? -> No.
I prefer the idea of citing it as a source, in the references section.
That's doubly wrong. Firstly, a "source" or "reference" is where
you get
facts from, not the text (so it doesn't satisfy the history
requirement). Secondly, if you're going to "reference" an article in
another language, you might as well "reference" the article itself,
which is kind of duh.
Timwi
I don't see how the edit summary is any better. The best place to put the
history would be, get this, a section entitled History, which follows the
outline given in the GFDL (title, year, authors, publisher, am I missing
something).
I know we're usually lenient about this, because hey, it's still Wikipedia,
but what if
answers.com <http://answers.com> put a note in some edit summary
saying "translated from [[:fr:Andorra]]". Would anyone be complaining about
GFDL compliance then?