On 11/8/05, Timwi timwi@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?