Talk:Villa di Poggio a Caiano

Crap

@BVILover: Posting machine-translated crap like this just means that somebody else will have to do the work from scratch by doing a real translation.

If you know the original language (Italian in this case), please make a real translation with proper formating. If you don't know the original langiage, don't try to steal credit for posting an article when you are just burdening somebody else with the actual work. It's like shitting on the street, expecting your neighbours to clean up after you. (Shirt58 did some cleanup, so it looks very slightly less terrible than before.) --Hegvald (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, Hegvald. We should certainly have an article on this notable Medici villa, but this is not it. I propose the nuclear option – remove the current text and make a clean start.

There's also a copyright concern here. The content of the it.wp article was copy-pasted from the website of the comune in 2005. The content is taken from a book: Luigi Corsetti, Alessandro Pinzani (1996 [1993]). Poggio a Caiano guida storico-artistica. Poggio a Caiano: Biblioteca Comunale. There's a sort of authorisation for the use of that material here, but it doesn't include a proper licence (perhaps that wasn't required in 2005?) and it is specific to it.wp. I'm sure we can't publish this material here without acknowledgement, and I'm pretty doubtful that we can publish it at all. Hegvald, Shirt58, DESiegel, what do you think? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Merde! If I had realized the above, I wpould not have spent the time and effort that I did. I rather strongly dislike WP:TNT, and indeed support WP:TNTTNT, but we can't keep a copyright infringement. It sounds as if the original author might be willing to license this freely, maybe, but I fear we can't accept the word of a librarian who is not the author -- we need a formal licnese grant from the author if this is to stay. I am highly annoyed. It also sounds as if the it Wikipedia really shouldn't keep this either, but as i don't read or write Italian, I can't really do anything about that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry about the work you've put in, DESiegel (and indeed, if it wasn't for that I'd probably already have reduced this to mini-stub). I was quite active for a while at WP:PNT, until I realised that cleaning up a bad translation takes far more time and effort than writing a new text, and that dumping this kind of thing here is not just unhelpful, it's highly counter-productive and also rather selfish. I'm really not sure about the copyright status – I wasn't around in 2005 and I don't know what was considered acceptable then, or indeed if that matters; I do know that this would not be acceptable now. What's the next step? Blank it and list it at WP:CP? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

And now User-duck is working on the same apparently unacceptable text (did you not see this discussion, User-duck?). DESiegel, do you agree that we can't use this text, and the article needs to be restarted, despite the work that has gone into it? If there's agreement here, I'd be happy to do that, much as I have done at Villa La Magia and Villa di Marignolle. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, I take it that you have verified the copying you wrote of above? Hegvald, Shirt58, User-duck, BVILover, my instinct is to list at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and blank this temporarily, and at the same time try Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission if we have contact info for the original author. Would that be acceptable to all of you? if not we need to reproduce to a stub, painful as that is, and re-expand from legit sources as anyone cares to put in the work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, DESiegel. And no, I've not verified anything beyond what I wrote above. I do read Italian without any trouble, so I'm confident that I've understood the old history correctly. There's no doubt about the copyvio, my doubts concern the subsequent permission; but I wasn't around in 2005, don't know what was acceptable back then, don't know if we grandfather incomplete permissions like this one, don't know whether the town library was the copyright holder of the book, don't know if the employee of the comune who sent the permission did so with the authorisation of the authors, and so on. Personally, I don't think the current text is good enough to justify any further effort, but I'm not one of those who've already invested time and energy in it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I hope I do this reply correctly. I have spent a lot of time editing this article. BUT it was done mostly as an exercise in editing and learning the Wikipedia markup language. This article was mentioned in a previous message and I was thinking that it was in the middle of "translation"/"migration" from the Italian to the English and thought I might help. Most of the effort was with syntax and links. These are rather tedious tasks. I then added some images from Wikimedia and finally some notes. I was very happy to figure out how to add true "notes". I do not care if this article gets NUKED, especially if there is copyright problems with the original text.User-duck (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I just raised the permission issue at it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni ottenute/Biblioteca Comunale di Poggio a Caiano. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

An editor at it.wiki just pointed out to me that the permission issue affects a small amount of article content given the drastic changes in the article between when that external content was imported and now. I've removed the problematic content from the article, but the article is still a disaster for other reasons. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @DESiegel and User-duck: in case they want to continue work on this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

BVILover

I realize that the copyrighted content on this page should be deleted (I did not notice it before), but you should fix the page rather than delete it entirely. Also, don't say bad words. There could be children reading this! -BVILover — Preceding unsigned comment added by BVILover (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

House of Savoy?

I do not think the reference to the House of Savoy is a mistake. I believe Marguerite Louise d'Orleans was from the House of Savoy.User-duck (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed she was … but this villa was not. The sidebar I removed is for navigation between members of that family. I believe it was placed here in error. Am I wrong? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not know if the sidebar was part of the original article from the Italian Wikipedia. I was just commenting on it being a "mistake". The article does mention the House of Savoy when talking about the decoration of the billiard room. But this probably does not warrant having the sidebar. Also, to me, a "mistake" is different from an "error".User-duck (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Does the entire article infringe on the copyright? Are the editors of the Italian wiki informed?User-duck (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)