Talk:Patent Absurdity/Subtitles

Subtitles format

English subtitles page doesn't look like subtitles. It looks more like a transcript of what is said in the video. From my limited knowledge of creating subtitles I have the impression thats not how its done.

Now someone has split most of the transcript into reasonable lengths for subtitles and time-coded them. The important thing at this stage is to have a coherent layout with time-codes first and a blank line between subtitles.

This way, the people who'll actually do the subtitles can automatically make the necessary changes automatically, e.g. saving the page content as a .csv file where they can change the formatting in the column of the time-codes (which is where there are lay-out differences between the various subtitling formats). Then they'll be able re-use that column for the subtitles in other languages.--Calmansi 16:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

French

I'm starting doing the French one (you can find me on #april, irc.freenode.net). --Echarp 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Page titles

Firstly, should this page be moved to Patent Absurdity/Subtitles to give the correct name of the film? steelpillow 18:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done steelpillow 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, we might have another transcript to translate one day. Would it be helpful if all the present subtitle pages were made sub-pages of Patent Absurdity, for example moving English to Patent Absurdity/English? The sooner it is done, the fewer the pages to be moved. steelpillow 18:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I created Category:Patent Absurdity for all these pages and added it to the template so they all appear in it. Will still have to move to sub-pages individually. steelpillow 21:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all those pages should be moved to either Patent Absurdity subtitles/Spanish or Patent Absurdity subtitles in Spanish. I can't see any difference between those two possibilities.

The only consideration I'd have is that the number of hits those pages have gotten is unusually high. I wonder if having pages named Deutsch, Español etc. is good for our search engine ranking. Maybe the new page names should preserve the translated names, like Patent Absurdity subtitles in Spanish (Español) (or with a "/"). Ciaran 01:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think that preserving the native names is good. If the choice is between say Patent Absurdity/Español and Patent Absurdity en Español, I don't know the various prepositions (did I even get that example right?) so the sub-page would be easier for me in practice. Alternatively "Patent Absurdity" could also be translated, but would that be better or worse? steelpillow 18:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning the English name is also useful, because a lot of people wouldn't know what 한국어 and עברית and Українська and Suomi are (or the difference between 简体中文 and 正體中文). Ciaran 20:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean something like Patent Absurdity/Español (Spanish)? The alternative would be doing say the English versions as redirects, which gets horrible to list neatly.steelpillow 21:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, I think that format works well. Ciaran 01:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Couple of things:

• how should I identify the Chinese variants, for example:
  • ../简体中文 - Simplified Chinese or just Chinese?
  • ../正體中文 - Traditional Chinese or Taiwanese?
• Is Patent Absurdity/Lietuvių kalba (Lithuanian) correct or should I revert to just "Lithuanian"?
• Is Patent Absurdity/Português (Brasil) (Brazilian Portuguese) correct?
• Should we be distinguishing between Castilian Spanish and Latin American Spanish? If so, which is the present translation?

steelpillow 18:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Copying other sites, here's what I think's most usual:

• Patent Absurdity/简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
• Patent Absurdity/正體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
• Patent Absurdity/Lietuvių (Lithuanian)
• Patent Absurdity/Português do Brasil (Brazilian Portuguese)
• Spanish - I don't think distinguishing is necessary.

Ciaran 23:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Licensing of subtitles

Users are requested to "Please license your subtitles under the Creative Commons Attribution license: CC-BY." At the same time, according to en.swpat.org:Copyrights, the copyright in any wiki contribution is assigned to End Software Patents and is made available under version 1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License. As such, does this mean that subtitles should be treated as being dual-licensed under CC-BY (it is not clear that all the submitted subtitles have an explicit licensing declaration) and the GFDL v1.3 (from what one remembers, this would require that a copy of the GFDL be included each time subtitles are distributed or redistributed)? Or, are subtitles exempt from the policy of wiki content being licensed under the GFDL? -- Elegie 09:38, 21 October 2010 (EDT)

Good point. I should fix the copyright statement to clarify what happens in this situation (by adding "unless otherwise stated").

My guess is that the translations are single-licensed CC-BY. The particular trumps the general.

The other possibility is that they're dual-licensed, but the single-license situation is sure, so if someone wants to be safe, they should assume the translations are single-licensed. Ciaran 10:19, 21 October 2010 (EDT)

I am presuming that "CC-BY" refers to "CC-BY 3.0 Unported." Is this correct? (On the other hand, the Swedish subtitles appear to be licensed under CC-BY 3.0 United States, though this is not a very substantial difference to be sure.) In addition, some of the subtitles do not seem to have any explicit information about licensing, including the French subtitles and the Spanish subtitles. Can it be presumed that these subtitles are licensed under the CC-BY 3.0 Unported license? -- Elegie 17:03, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

I was thinking about this. Since en.swpat.org:Copyrights says that all contributions are assigned to ESP, there's no problem of copyright ownership. It's just a question of deciding what free licence is best and announcing that the transcripts and translations are under that licence. (right?) Ciaran 17:08, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

And in fact, there was never a need to ask contributors to license their translations in any particular way. That was a mistake which all started from a reaction to one contributor putting their translation under a licence that caused technical problems. Ciaran 18:31, 22 October 2010 (EDT)