Editing Eurovision Wiki:Village pump (policy) (section)

== Is it ever appropriate to remove a "Translated page" template? ==

Hello, I recently edited a stub [[Jean-François Fournel]], which was originally translated from the corresponding Swedish Wikipedia article. With my edits, the "Translated page" template on the article's talk page doesn't seem accurate anymore. (The content I added basically rewrote the stub.) Is it ever appropriate to remove that template (like in this case)? [[User:Chao Garden|<span style="color:#a1012b;background-color:#fbe2ef;border-radius:4px;padding:0px 3px;font-family:'Comic Relief', 'Comic Sans', sans-serif;">'''Chao Garden 🌱'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Chao Garden|hi]]) 06:42, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

:@[[User:Chao Garden|Chao Garden]] Yes, it seems reasonable to remove the tag here. More generally, those tags are optional and not necessary for attribution purposes: legally, the only attribution that counts is edit summaries in the edit history, which we already have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_Fournel&oldid=688531875]. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 09:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

::I would tend to suggest leaving the template up and using its <code>insertversion</code> parameter to make clear ''which'' revision of the page contained the translation.  That's not strictly necessary but I do feel it would be best practice, not least in case the changes you made were to be reverted in future.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 09:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::Do we not mention it in references or external links? I recall we (at least used to) do that on nlwiki. (And I personally think that is a good system) [[User:Slomo666|Slomo666]] ([[User talk:Slomo666|talk]]) 09:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Different wikis have different systems. Here we do not put attribution in the page itself, only in an edit summary, like the example at [[WP:TFOLWP]]. On dewiki they import the entire edit history of the original article. Different ways to reach the same goal. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 17:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:Toadspike|Toadspike]], this is wrong:  {{!xt|legally, the only attribution that counts is edit summaries in the edit history}}.  The license accepts any "reasonable" method of attribution.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:51, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::And whether or not a disclaimer on an entirely different page is reasonable is a matter for courts to decide, and is very much the thing that long, protracted, legal battles are fought over. All Wikipedia editors agree that a hyperlink to the original text is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license; that or listing their name. Local guidelines, as written by MRG many years ago, specifically say we put that in the edit summary. (Though, tbh, if somebody puts "this was copied/translated from X article" in the actual article... I'm leaving it.) [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|<span style="color:#EB0533;">GreenLipstickLesbian</span>]][[User Talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|💌]][[Special:Contribs/GreenLipstickLesbian|🧸]] 00:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::I think that’s very valid. As I mentioned, nlwiki does both essentially. There you must link in the edit summary to the permalink of the correct revision, and place on the bottom of the page (I think in external links or references, but I’m a bit fuzzy on the specifics) the template that says it was partly or wholly translated from parts or the entirety of whichever article (again: permalink) you translated. I think that is relevant, because you should show what kind of translation (automatic or human and in the case of automatic: how much human redaction/eduting went into that) was used. Anyways I know the policy here is different, but I don’t see why we wouldn’t allow it as an option. [[User:Slomo666|Slomo666]] ([[User talk:Slomo666|talk]]) 12:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

As an aside, the specific template discussed here isn't chiefly related to attributation but cleanup - it is (was) {{tl|Cleanup translation}}, not templates such as {{tl|copied}} or {{tl|Translated page}}. 

And as an aside to the aside: While {{tl|Translated page}} promises [[WP:TFOLWP]] will contain the rationale for the edit summary requirement, it only explains why attributation is required in general, it doesn't actually discuss or explain how and why edit summaries were chosen as the attributation delivery method (and it doesn't detail what other delivery methods were considered but discarded) [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 11:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

:There is no "edit summary requirement" in the first place, so there cannot be any rationale for why it is required.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]], I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish with this pedantry. Unless you have evidence that courts would accept attribution outside of the edit history (or the article itself), it is for all intents and purposes "required" that we provide attribution there. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 08:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::The license says "[[Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License|any reasonable manner]]".  The license does not say anything whatsoever about an edit summary.  For all we know, a court could decide that the edit history is an unreasonable form of attribution for some purposes.  Since having no visible attribution at all has been declared "reasonable" before (e.g., for images printed on T-shirts, "reasonable" has been interpreted as providing the information and a copy of the license separately instead of printing it on the T-shirt), it's likely that many forms of attribution would be acceptable.
:::What I am trying to accomplish is:  I want you to stop spreading the false rumor that only edit summaries or in-article text is acceptable.  It is not true.  Also, there's a risk that if you keep saying things like this, not only will we have editors worrying that [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution]] is wrong, but we might have a copyright troll using your words as "proof" that "any reasonable manner" is a narrow thing ("See?  The Wikipedia ''admin'' said it, so it must be true!"). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] You seem to have missed the part of the license that says {{tq|... in the case of a Adaptation or Collection, at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors.}} Since the credits for all contributing authors are in the article history, it seems quite clear to me that "as part of these credits" means the attribution must appear there at a minimum. 
::::The [[wmf:Policy:Terms of Use/en|Terms of Use]] say that an edit summary in the page history is sufficient and do not suggest any other method of attribution. This suggests to me that we should use the legally approved method (yes, "legally", by the Board of Trustees and, presumably, WMF Legal) of edit summaries in page histories and not invent other methods of dubious legality. (Quote: {{tq|You agree that, if you import text under a CC license that requires attribution, you must credit the author(s) in a reasonable fashion. Where such credit is commonly given through page histories (such as Wikimedia-internal copying), it is sufficient to give attribution in the edit summary, which is recorded in the page history, when importing the text.}})
::::Finally, and of least legal weight but most practical import on this project: [[WP:CWW|Our policy]] repeatedly states that edit summaries are required "at a minimum", while talk page notices are optional. I stand by the statement that only edit summaries are acceptable, and since in-article attribution is more prominent than an edit summary, I could be convinced that that is also acceptable. 
::::I really don't care what a court ''could'' decide; I don't see how anything I've said conflicts with [[WP:RIA]], which prescribes fixing attribution through edit summaries and which I do constantly; and copyright trolls will troll regardless of what you or I say here. 
::::Since I avoid making personal attacks, I will not accuse you of spreading a false rumor in return, but I would appreciate if you were to withdraw that accusation against me. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 18:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::If our policy says that edit summaries are required, then our policy is wrong.  If you interpret "At a minimum, this means providing an [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] at the destination page" as meaning "This is the simplest way to do this, but there are other options", then that would be correct. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] Do you have ''any'' evidence for this claim, on which you based a personal attack? Your reading runs counter to all of the evidence I have seen. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 20:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::I don’t see anyone claiming that there aren’t other options. But that it is simple, and the current guideline, should mean this is what we do. (Unless in cases where something has gone wrong) {{pb}}
::::::“{{tq|then our policy is wrong }}”{{pb}}
::::::I do not see what you are trying to achieve here. Do you aim to change the guideline? Because in that case, I wish you good luck trying to establish a project-wide consensus for this change, but you will find me on the opposing side. {{pb}}
::::::What do you envision as the {{tq|other options}}? Because I don’t dispute these exist (I think Toadspike does too) but in your hostility to edit summaries, it would almost appear as if you prefer things that would just make things harder for literally every party involved. (Editor, reviewing editors, and any potential copyright lawyer)  {{pb}}
::::::I do not get it. You do your name justice. <br>
::::::What ''are'' you doing? {{pb}} Sincerely, {{pb}}
::::::Happy editing,{{pb}}
::::::[[User:Slomo666|Slomo666]] ([[User talk:Slomo666|talk]]) 23:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::People claiming that there aren’t other options is exactly the problem:  Toadspike – and presumably other editors, because where else would Toadspike have gotten that information?  We teach our rules via [[telephone game]], after all – appear to be saying that {{xt|"Where such credit is commonly given through page histories (such as Wikimedia-internal copying), it is <u>sufficient</u> to give attribution in the edit summary"}} means {{!xt|"Where such credit is commonly given through page histories (such as Wikimedia-internal copying), it is <u>not merely sufficient, but actually necessary</u> to give attribution in the edit summary"}}.
:::::::Toadspike [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#c-Toadspike-20260312092400-Chao Garden-20260312064200|said]] {{!xt|"legally, the only attribution that counts is edit summaries"}}.  AFAICT this is wrong.  Attribution ''can'' take any reasonable form.  We, as a community, prefer and normalize edit summaries as the form of attribution, but that doesn't mean that '''legally''' edit summaries are the '''only''' option.
:::::::The main other options that I envision is the use of talk-page templates and in-article templates.  We have used these since at least 2003 (since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Translated_page&oldid=44212962 at least 2006] specifically for translated articles – Wikipedia wasn't even using the CC licenses at that point). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Please stop encouraging editors to commit copyright violations. Attributing a translation solely on the talk page is a copyright violation. If you are still confused, go back to "You seem to have missed" above and reread those two sentences. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 09:54, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Those two sentences don't stats that attributing a translation solely on the talk page is a copyright violation, nor do they imply it. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 11:33, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::The 3.0 license (see [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#c-Toadspike-20260314101600-WhatamIdoing-20260314002900|below]]) requires attribution as part of the credits for all contributing authors. The talk page is not the location of those credits. Not complying with the license is violating copyright. QED. I'm not saying this is the end of the world – per [[WP:RIA]], it's not a huge deal – but it's not something we should encourage in any way. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 12:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I don’t care about what we “legally” have to do according to (presumably) US copyright law. It may surprise you, but I have the utmost contempt for US copyright law.
::::::::While a licence may use the word “reasonable”, what is reasonable depends greatly on context. This reasonability standard is not limited to Wikimedia-based usage, but also usage after something has been published on Wikipedia. So necessarily it includes other forms of attribution than edit summaries, because other media forms/publications do not use edit summaries at all.
::::::::In my view, while a talk page template may be useful, I think it is not enough to qualify as reasonable and I do not think it falls into the established practice on enwiki (or even other projects). 
::::::::I can illustrate this with an example: if you respond to an edit request, the guidelines call upon you to directly link to the edit request in the edit summary of your implementation of the request. (the summary would say “Per talk page edit request [link] by [user:insert user]”) 
::::::::This is easy, and the fact it is the easiest way that appropriately attributes, is what makes it the “reasonable” option.
::::::::The fact this is the established practice, in my opinion, means you should try to use it when possible (by default) to make it so people will not have to go beyond the list of edit summaries for any legal issues related to copyright. (If it goes wrong, we should attempt to remedy this when- and however possible of course)
::::::::A talk page template requires checking a different page, in another namespace. Something that is not expected of non-contributors.
::::::::I think a template on the article itself (in references or another section of sources) can be sufficient, but I also do not see why you would want to do this without also saying it in an edit summary, and I am neither a lawyer nor an expert of Wikipedia’s guidelines. [[User:Slomo666|Slomo666]] ([[User talk:Slomo666|talk]]) 12:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
::The requirement is in a guideline? Maybe there isn’t a law that says we have to do this specific thing, but this is what our guidelines say, which themselves are how we implement the policies which in turn are what the WMF foundation expects, and is necessary to deal with the rulings from *their* legal departments.
::I trust that the system is well thought-out and I would not want to jeopardise the legal situation of this project or the foundation because we think the current policy or guideline is too strict. I think, if that is the position of a large number of editors, we would first need to have a discussion on the policy, subject to intervention from above, before we change things about how we do things. 
::And personally, I think the system is fine, the current guidelines (mostly) suffice and I think it is not too much to ask to follow them. [[User:Slomo666|Slomo666]] ([[User talk:Slomo666|talk]]) 12:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::"The system" was created before the Wikimedia Foundation existed.  WMF Legal has never said that an edit summary is a necessary or mandatory way to provide attribution.  In fact, when you look at things the WMF Legal department has uploaded themselves ([[commons:File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_Department_How_to_get_help.pdf|example]]), you'll find that they do not always use an edit summary to provide attribution (in that example, the images are correctly attributed in plain text at the end of the document). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::That is...a PDF. It is not a Wikipedia article. I am seriously impressed by how many red herrings you've been able to come up with. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 23:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::The CC license isn't specific to Wikipedia articles.  It doesn't have one set of rules for wiki pages and another set of rules for PDFs.  As a legal-as-in-contract-lawyers matter, the CC rules are the same for all media. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::"The CC license" ''does'' have a rule that applies to adaptations that credit all contributing authors (which Wikipedia pages do in the edit history), but does not apply to random PDFs with no named author(s). Or, at least, it did. 
::::::I've noticed that the guideline [[WP:CWW]], under "The CC BY-SA, section 4(c)", is quoting an older version of the CC BY-SA license, the 3.0 version ([[Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License|Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License]]). [[m:Wikimedia_Foundation/Legal/2023_ToU_updates/About#Section_7_Licensing_of_Content|In 2023]], we switched to the 4.0 version ([[Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License|Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License]]), which does not include the wording about attribution credit appearing as part of the credits for all contributing authors. I will update the quote accordingly. However, Wikipedia edits published before 2023 (which is most of them, including the "translation" that kicked off this thread) still fall under 3.0, which means, afaict, we must provide credit in the edit history "at a minimum". '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 10:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::A CC license applies to anything that's licensed that way, including random PDFs with no named author(s).
:::::::Just to be clear:  I've got no problem with the English Wikipedia establishing any reasonable system that works for us.  My problem is in someone saying that this is a ''legal'' problem, as opposed to a violation of our own guidelines.  The ''legal'' requirements can be met in multiple ways.  A re-user is perfectly free to run an article through [[Wikipedia:Who Wrote That?]], carve the usernames of editors responsible for the visible parts of the current text (ignoring all others) into the floor tiles, and lay a printed copy of the article reverently on top of the names.  This would comply with the license requirements and would therefore be ''legal''. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with this. Per what I also just said in my comment. Reasonable standards are reasonable for a medium. For Wikipedia, edit summaries are always reasonable. For media that don’t use edit summaries, there must be something else that is reasonable. 
::::::::but besides I guess the factual inaccuracy of using the word “legally” which implies consequences beyond WMF projects, I think this discussion is kind of moot since you agree with wmf/WP/enwiki establishing its own standards to fulfill the “reasonable” requirements. 
::::::::[[User:Slomo666|Slomo666]] ([[User talk:Slomo666|talk]]) 12:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)