Personally, as much as it's straightforward, I think there should be a guide or a format available for the people to see.

There would need to be a way to sort the dead links out. I fear there is currently neither a module nor a snippet capable of this. This would probably require scripting.

I was thinking: How about linking translated articles at the bottom of SCP articles and tales, Wikia-style?

For example: See how this page displays links to read the same article in three more languages. The Wikia system makes it easy to generate these links, that's true, but results can be seen: It provides users with a transparent way to jump from the original version of the article to a translation of it, as long as it's available and it's linked to it by community members.

I mention this, for not every SCP or story has its own translation, at least in our ES Wiki site.

And also I think that, at the same time, a Translations Hub on the Main Wiki can be a good thing to have, as I'm guessing there must be some users who see a Wiki page in their own language at Main Page but don't think anything about it and they just plain ignore it. Even some new users have told this to us when they join our ES page.

Well, that's what I can say for the moment.

You will either have to extend the main-universe so that each branch exists, like an █k-universe-conjunction-scenario (which would be a great opportunity to start the INT-hub with an international writing event), or you make clear that the branches exist in own or maybe shared universes, that happen to share the EN-SCPs but have a different background. But get rid of the idea that the branches SCPs should be harmonized with your canon.

You are now experiencing why politics in the EU take so long. As long as not all sides make compromises they can live with, there will be no agreement.

I get now why translations should be linked on the main list but not why the title should be the english number. Either both or the original title, though I prefer only the original title.
Why not putting both numbers in the SCP itself, like Item #: SCP-XXX-YY / SCP-ZZZZ (though using the original number in the text).

I personally don't give a trump for the assholes who are searching for a reason to downvote, and I wouldn't let my descissions be influenced by these people.

Even the dumbest of all dumb users have to notice on first glance that they are viewing a translation.

I don't know what you mean with "#".

If people don't want to be judged on the mainlist, we could allow them to have their page only be linked from the International hub. This wouldn't be allowed to become a dumping ground for bad translations, since people would at least initially still read these articles and vote on it similarly to an original SCP.

Creating two separate articles is not a good way to accomplish anything, it would cause confusion and distress both for the author and the community, which would almost certainly have a negative reaction to the same article being posted twice in two different contexts.

We could probably omit the licensing entirely, and add a blanket statement to the page itself that everything is the CC 3.0 license in addition to the one at the bottom of the wiki.

Change that to everything is CC-BY-SA 3.0 (there are multiple, non-compatible Creative Commons licenses) and remove the bottom of the wiki mention, as there are cases where the license that is claimed there is not the license they actually legally have (eg, any and all translation wikis claiming to be non-commercial are not, as CC-BY-SA does not work like that).

I need to actually sit down and reread everything here, I feel I need to ponder on this more to succinctly gather my thoughts in one post instead of multiple replies.

Another thing came to my mind. How do we deal with sites, GOI and MTFs? I'm seeing two options:

• Sites, GOI and MTFs from the branches are put in the respective EN-article (like groups-of-interest) under a headline for each branch
• They are put tabs in the "About -XX Branch" page Dr. Grym mentioned, as well as other branch-canon.

I think that IO could probably handle going over translations from the various international branches and being an extra layer of quality control to make sure articles are ready for prime time when they're going to be posted.

So tl;dr: Everything is CC BY-SA 3.0, regardless what it is labeled. Mentioning the license in the INT-Hub or on translated pages isn't necessary!?

We could probably omit the licensing entirely, and add a blanket statement to the page itself that everything is the CC 3.0 license in addition to the one at the bottom of the wiki.

As far as the translated articles names on hubs and such, linking to the same article twice under two different names seems like the most efficient solution. I'm fairly certain most of our international users want to see if their SCPs can survive on the main list, along with the articles they're translating. I think definitely having them listed by their original numbers on the translation hubs would help make them easier to find and identify, as well as having a translation tag to designate them as such on the page.

If there are any other aesthetic changes we could do for translation articles, like something with the flags on the rating module, if it's technically feasible that sounds like something that could be fun.

Everything is CC BY-SA 3.0, regardless what it is labeled.

Everything that was not originally under a separate license elsewhere and is now used with special dispensation¹ is CC-BY-SA 3.0. Outside these exceptions, all SCP content is CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Mentioning the license in the INT-Hub or on translated pages isn't necessary!?

I cannot speak for the translation sites, but the English Wiki has, at the very bottom of every page:

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License

If the translation sites also have that, that is sufficient for the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0 However, it does not mean that the original author, etc, do not need to be credited.

This was something licensing had been formally planning to address, but a series of outside commitments for Vince, myself, and the admins we report to caused it to not be properly handled.

I may be wrong, but to me "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License" is very clear. You could publish content under any license you want, you just have to make clear what is released under what license. Like the disclaimer under SCP-173. You could use standart copyright, all rights reserved, public domain, a self defined license or whatever.

That's accurate, but SCP universe stuff is already under a license (you've copied the O5 one, the correct one is on the SCP wiki — "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License").

Spinoff material, or SCP universe stuff in another language, is still under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. That's because none of us — including EN admins — have the rights to release SCP universe stuff under anything else.

(We actually tried at one point, and got told very nicely by people who knew what they were doing that we could not do that, and needed to change it back.)

Moose is entirely correct on this. Once our licensing was set to CC-by-SA-3.0, nobody could change it, not even to more restrictive licenses like the CC-by-NC family. And even if they could, someone producing content for sale in your language/region would simply have to link back to the English site with the less restrictive license and they would be in the clear. They could probably even do this with your content that has no basis in the English wiki, because it would still fall under our license by virtue of being based on and associated with our site. I have been meaning to get in contact with the few non-English wikis who have tried to change to the CC-by-NC license to sort that out, but have not had the time it would require.

I may be wrong, but to me "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License" is very clear. You could publish content under any license you want, you just have to make clear what is released under what license. Like the disclaimer under SCP-173. You could use standart copyright, all rights reserved, public domain, a self defined license or whatever.

That's accurate, but SCP universe stuff is already under a license (you've copied the O5 one, the correct one is on the SCP wiki — "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License").

Spinoff material, or SCP universe stuff in another language, is still under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. That's because none of us — including EN admins — have the rights to release SCP universe stuff under anything else.

(We actually tried at one point, and got told very nicely by people who knew what they were doing that we could not do that, and needed to change it back.)

SCP-173 has a different disclaimer because it's not an SCP universe picture. It's an art piece belonging to a Japanese artist who very generously allowed us to keep using his work, but asked us to add a disclaimer.

If non-SCP universe stuff gets translated — such as books in the Wanderers' Library that, while hosted on an SCP universe site, are not inherently part of the SCP universe — then the page itself should say so. Example here.

Once there is the possibility to make translations into English it will take some time until the first translations appear. Translation into a foreign language is even harder than into your own. More important would be to find ways for QA to make sure rather bad translations are getting revised to the point where they meet the quality standarts of the EN-Wiki. Maybe it would be usefull to create Team of EN-Staff who are dedicated to reviewing translations into English.

I agree with this.

I think creating a team of EN staff who are dedicated to reviewing English translations (and potentially helping smooth out issues) would be a very good idea. If the only issue preventing an article translation from succeeding "poor mastery of English spelling/grammar" then it would be excellent if the English wiki had a team to help with that.

A possible issue might be that EN staff are already stretched somewhat thin — but a project like this sounds pretty appealing, so we could possibly get more volunteers.

thedeadlymoose: as far as I know we can't allow SCP translations to be listed on the English wiki under the wrong license

I may be wrong, but to me "Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License" is very clear. You could publish content under any license you want, you just have to make clear what is released under what license. Like the disclaimer under SCP-173. You could use standart copyright, all rights reserved, public domain, a self defined license or whatever.

MScarlet: We can take reference form Heritage articles, their rate module have a icon which link to Heritage Collection hub. I think a similar icon like a flag of the original site or specific icon, can be put on the rate module of translated articles to notice reader that this article is written on a canon that may not 100% follow the EN standard. It's should looks more significant than a single tag.

Whatever solution we find for the numbering, we should do this flag thing!

thedeadlymoose: As far as I know, no one's suggesting posting the translation twice, just linking to the same article twice under two different names.

I personally would be fine with this (other german staff members are not though), as long als the title of the page is the original number. Though I still don't understand the necessity to list translated SCPs on the main list. There may be translated SCPs from some branches on the mainlist, but as far as I know these were "converted" from a branches SCP to a main-list-SCP. If the authors/translators had had the possibility to publish the translation in an INT-hub, they may have chosen differently.

Dr Grym: It could be a source of conflict

Really? I mean, the language is called French and I have never seen the french language be represented by anything else than the french flag on the internet. This is about easy recognizability. Many users probably wouldn't even know there is a union of french speaking countries, let alone its flag.
And how would you choose? French is also an official language in Switzerland, Luxembourg and several former colonies. You will never be able to satisfy everybody. Though I have to admit I can't really comprehend the status the flag has in many countries. Most Germans don't see their flag as important as others do for some reason…

Dr Grym: We should give us a deadline to supply a list of the different members willing to translate articles and in what langage. What do you guys think about it ?

I think forcing translations is like forcing a fart… probably shit. Once there is the possibility to make translations into English it will take some time until the first translations appear. Translation into a foreign language is even harder than into your own. More important would be to find ways for QA to make sure rather bad translations are getting revised to the point where they meet the quality standarts of the EN-Wiki. Maybe it would be usefull to create Team of EN-Staff who are dedicated to reviewing translations into English.

So there's no reason that double edits would need to be made. To use Decibelle's example, "SCP-2193" (on the mainlist) and "SCP-500-FR" (on the French translation hub) would link to the exact same page.

Would'nt be easier just to say what branch should have its own hub and what branch should be put in the mainlist when it comes to start the translation ?

We can't have branches decide for all their authors where all that branch's SCPs will go, because that takes away the individual authors' right to post their translated SCP on the English mainlist if they want to.

Apologies if I misunderstood anything!

I have a similar issue as Dr_Grom, I think, with the license labels. Except I'm not sure why the license labels are here at all. As far as I know, legally speaking, no one has the right to change the particular license that SCP universe stuff is released under.

While we are in no way planning to go after the other wikis for choosing to change the listed license, as far as I know we can't allow SCP translations to be listed on the English wiki under the wrong license (aka, a different license from the rest of the SCP material), no matter what the other wikis choose to do.

So, I think the best solution is to simply omit any license labeling. Leave the whole thing alone.

I've read the past threads but I still don't understand the need to put translations on the main list.

Because we're not going to stop people from putting translations of their own work (or author-approved translations) on the main list.

Whatever solution we come up with, individual international authors must always at least have the option of posting their translated work on the main English SCP list, such as SCP-179.

The quality will probably not meet the standards the viewer is used to. People who do not know they are viewing a translation will think the author cannot into English -> downvote.

Your point makes sense with differing canon issues like the O4 thing. But that's not about quality, just different canon.

If we're just talking about the quality of the writing/translation, then people will downvote it if it's badly written regardless of if it's a translation. Work on the English wiki does have to reach the English wiki's quality standards.

We can take reference form Heritage articles, their rate module have a icon which link to Heritage Collection hub. I think a similar icon like a flag of the original site or specific icon, can be put on the rate module of translated articles to notice reader that this article is written on a canon that may not 100% follow the EN standard. It's should looks more significant than a single tag.

And it have an average: We don't have necessary to think about the numbering problem because reader can identify the translated article on top-right corner, old article can keep their number of EN site on main list and use their original number of own site on translation list.

SCP-XXXX [SCP-YYYY-RU] - Title

Do the same thing with page titles¹ How they're listed on the translation hubs can be up to the individual translation sites.

This way translated skips get a mainlist number, but it's also immediately apparent that they're a translation. Everybody wins.

- Everybody will be happy
- No double work and confusion everywhere

As for numbering:

I agree with Grom and Grym's sentiments on the numbering issue. If the non-English sites translate the English site's articles down to the number, it does not seem fair for the English site to insist that translated articles must fit the English site's standards.

Still, there is some points I need to talk about (hey, I'm french, I have to be always unsatisfied) :

1) Numerotation :

I really don't understand why we need this creation of double articles. Why should we change the "names" of the different SCPs ? Can you imagine all the crossed links we will have to fix / change, depending on if we want to have something "translated" or "on the mainlist" ?

Moreover keeping the same names :

- Won't confuse readers
- Will keep a "in-universe" coherence : "why is this SCP-XXX exactly the same as SCP-XXX-FR ? Wasn't this SCP managed by the french branch at first ?"
- Will keep us away from double editing. If we spot a spelling mistake on one article, we will have to do twice the work. And it's only one kind of all the synchronisation task we will have to do if we take this model
- Won't change the attitude of the reader : saying that people will act harder / softer with a foreign article is on my point of view irrelevant as reading a creation is also depending on the context around it. When you are watching "the origin of the world" (you know, the famous vagina painting), you are not acting the same way you do when you see a vagina painted on your house frontdoor. Moreover, people will act the way they want. Why are we caring this much about this ? We present a creation, we are prepared for feedback, period.
- Will give some credit and respect to the authors. Most of them will think the english branch is "stealing" away their creation by naming them in a "english way".

2) Design

For the flag, as I already said, it could be complicated to choose one for branches with members from different countries speaking the same langage. It could be a source of conflict, even if it's really not that important.

For each hub, I think each branch should wrote a "About -XX Branch" article we could place above the links for the series, to explain what are the special elements of its universe (this article should be wrote in a "in-universe" way, I think)

3) The team

We should give us a deadline to supply a list of the different members willing to translate articles and in what langage. What do you guys think about it ?

As for numbering: I've read the past threads but I still don't understand the need to put translations on the main list. Yeah, to make them been seen like every other SCP on the main list. But they are not like every other SCP on the main list and cannot be seen like main list SCPs. Like putting an article about the Kelvin Timeline into a section about the Original Timeline.

They have different quality standards, different canon, different running gags etc. People will need to know the page is not written by EN-standards. Tagging it "translation" or something isn't enough. People don't care for tags. If they do not, on the first glance, understand that the page is a translation, they will rather give no or a bad vote if they don't understand the article.
The French for example are having the additionally Thread-Level classification. People who do not know it's a translated french page will think it's format-fuck -> downvote.
We for example are having an O4 in addition to O5. People who do not know it's a translated german page will think the author is as new as new can be -> downvote.
Another problem is the quality of the translation. Making a good translation is very hard and requires lots of experience and self control. The quality will probably not meet the standards the viewer is used to. People who do not know they are viewing a translation will think the author cannot into English -> downvote.

That would be unfair to the original author. Especially to those who don't speak English and have no control about the translation of their work. E.g. one of our most active authors doesn't speak a single word of English. How are you going to prevent this?

Licensing: The bottom of every page says:

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License

Why do you need this big license-icons for any branch that uses the exactly same license as the EN-wiki? To me, that's an unnecessary redundancy. After all this is about horror stories, not licenses.
Can you elaborate if/why you deem this necessary? What does the licensing team say about this issue?

Edit: Oh I forgot to say: You are required to show the license of translations with a different license than the Wiki on every page where that license applies, not just on a hub (which itself would have the license of the wiki it is in). How are you going to do this? Different categories? Wouldn't be obvious enough in my opinion. You would probably have to use components like this and this. That is another reason why the license-icon on the hub is obsolete.

Organization:
Are the branches going to be able to design their hubs themselves? If they are having to use this I'm having additional suggestions :P

There should be a list of contacts of every branch, that are willing to help translating their articles into English, as Dr Grym suggested in the international wiki.

Design: I've got some suggestions:

• Only one flag per branch. Each branch decides which flag to display. It may be a combination of multiple flags but not larger than a normal flag and still recognizable.
• The flag goes where the license-icon is, with a height of 40 px or something.
• The licensing icon remains only for the russian and thai branch. It is replaced with the small icon and displayed in the title bar of the branches box, where the flag is now but right-aligned.
• The whole page doesn't meet the usual design of hubs on the main page. I suggest a heading similar to the tale hub, with security warning, explanation and advise how to contribute.

• Optional: To make sure even the dumbest user understands that he has left the standard SCP universe zone, I suggest a blueish header background instead of the reddish, like here, where blue stands for internationality.

Edit: With this changes, the code for a hub-box could look like this (you will have to preview this with the css-code from the workbench, as this forum doesn't support CSS and Sigma-9 isn't installed here):

[[div class="content-panel right-column standalone"]] [[div class="content-type-title"]] +++ [http://scpfoundation.ru/ SCP-RU :: Фонд] [[image https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/3.0/80x15.png link="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/" style="float: right"]] [[/div]] [[div class="content-type-options"]] [[=image http://scp-wiki.wdfiles.com/local--files/decibelle-s-workbench/Russia.png height="40px" style="border: 1px solid"]] * [http://scpsandbox2.wikidot.com/decibelle-v-1 SCP-RU Series][[footnote]] [[[scp-series-ru|SCP-RU Series]]] [[/footnote]] * [http://scpsandbox2.wikidot.com/decibelle-v-2 RU Foundation Tales][[footnote]] [[[foundation-tales-ru|RU Foundation Tales]]] [[/footnote]] * [http://scpsandbox2.wikidot.com/decibelle-v#ru Copyright Notice + Credits][[footnote]][[[copyright:credits-ru|Copyright Notice + Credits]]][[/footnote]] [[/div]] [[/div]]

This translation hub (which you can view on my workbench here) will be a place where users can not only access works translated on the other sites and find a hub of them, but also see proper credit for who wrote and translated those articles (as well as credits for the English works as well). This has been a WIP for over a year now, and is comfortably enough to a near-final stage where larger discussion about the implementation, practicality, and look of it can occur on 05, as well as being much easier for people. Roget, anqxyr, and I have worked on this, and feedback from users have been taken into account as best as can be, especially with regards to how articles will be represented on the mainsite. On that front, the closest middle ground we could reach was thus: if a mainlist SCP from another site gets translated (say, SCP-500-FR), it has to be in our mainlist, url and title and everything (say, SCP-2193). However, SCP-500-FR can be listed as such on the French's SCP Series hub.

Some notes I can think of immediately:

• The footnotes on the workbench won't be in the final product. They're only there to remind me of the shortcuts I'd be using when posting this as a final product on the site. Incidentally, now that category pages are treated differently as fragment pages, I'm not sure how that part should be taken care of.
  • Similarly, any links to sandboxes will lead to links of the mainsite versions of those respective pages.
• This method of displaying credits for all the pages of the English articles will also be the format used for displaying credits/a series list for any translated SCPs. While the English credits are automatic, you'll be able to edit in the page for your respective site's list. However, I'm still not sure about how to go about displaying this for the Russian site, as I've learned from speaking with Gene R, as the Russian site changes the article's numbering once a translated SCP sticks on our site.
• Licensing pictures have been made smaller at people's requests. I'm hesitant to get rid of them altogether, but I don't want to make it so big and obtrusive. Hopefully I hit upon something that looks right.

These are all the notes I can think of; if you have any comments or questions or feedback, let us know, as this thread is the ideal place for discussing it now that this project is to go ahead with no stops again.