Appendix talk:Proto-Uralic reconstructions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This is just a straight copy of data from another site, which raises copyright concerns. It also functionally duplicates Wiktionary's own entries on these pages, which this list doesn't even link to. —Rua (mew) 19:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. As far as I can tell, this isn't a "straight copy" and is simply an index selecting only essential headwords and glosses at the top of every entry. See for instance 1, 2, 3. It's not wholesale copying of the entire entries with all of the notes, etymologies, reflexes, and other footnotes. The appendix is copiously referenced and gives proper attribution. Plus, it links to all the original online entries and nicely complements rather than replaces the original etymological database. Linguists and lexicographers generally wouldn't believe a list of proto-forms without sufficient cited evidence, so this appendix would serve to "whet their appetite" for looking things up in the original etymological database. Also, to be extra certain, we might as well check Hungarian copyright law, but I doubt there would be anything giving us definitive answers on how to deal with etymological indices, just as Wikipedia:Copyright in lists doesn't give us any definitive answers for such a niche subject. Even seasoned copyright lawyers would all have their own opinions. To me, this is a case of reasonable use of open-access lexical data, and everyone would benefit from not having copyright paranoia as advised on Meta.
- Furthermore, by now it's common, conventional practice in the linguistics community to build and host public open-access lexical databases featuring wholesale reproduction of previously published word lists as long as proper attribution is given, as with Reflex (African languages), STEDT (East Asian languages, has lists like this), and many others. The general consensus among historical linguists is that these kinds of open-access databases do not violate copyright.
- As for duplicating Wiktionary entries, I don't see the need to eliminate an appendix if it's seen as redundant to what a category already has. Indices are actually quite helpful in their own right.
- The other more experienced members should have more insights, but my feeling is that this really looks like a keep. Kongolex (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Move to a different namespace. This is clearly useful for developing WP's Proto-Uralic / Finno-Ugric appendices, but it also clearly needs cleanup (e.g. what's the point of the extensive tables describing phonemes in Hungarian? why is Finnish privileged as the only language whose reflexes are given?) and numerous updates. Uralonet is exlusively based on
{{R:UEW}}from 1988 and even the supplementary bibliography has nothing in it after 2005; also no authors in it who aren't retired by now).
- FWIW I and some colleagues have a recent paper (Junttila, Holopainen & Pystynen 2020) discussing (some issues of) the current state of comparative Uralic lexicography that you might find informative for this question. --Tropylium (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. No part of this list reaches the threshold of originality required for copyright protection. Especially for reconstructible basic words the wording used in the glosses is so basic that everyone is likely to use the same words, which contraindicates originality. The requirements for database protection, ingenious connection of data to metadata requiring additional investment, are also not reached. As said there is additional functionality which contraindicates duplicative character. Fay Freak (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- RFD-kept. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)