Request for accounts / instruction to translate terms for zh_HK

[chpapa]

Hi this is Ben from Creative Commons Hong Kong here. We have noticed that the license chooser for zh_HK translation is not available on the website and we would like to work on the translation so we have > 80% translated terms on https://www.transifex.com/nkinkade/CC/ again.

We have a volunteer able to work on it and would you mind to send us the instruction / access information? My email is chpapa@gmail.com / info@hk.creativecommons.org

Ben

[peterspdx]

Hi Ben,

We don't translate the deeds by jurisdictions, we try to only have one translation per language. If there's an existing translation into that language already present, there's no need to translate.

Diane

[chpapa]

@peterspdx Understood. However there are currently no translation / confusion on which language we should use for Hong Kong. There are two chinese translation on the license chooser page:

1. https://creativecommons.org/choose/?lang=zh
2. https://creativecommons.org/choose/?lang=zh_TW

While 1 is definitely not an options for us since it display as simplified Chinese which is not commonly used in Hong Kong; 2 have two confusion:

a. It specifically said 華語 (台灣) a.k.a. Chinese (Taiwan); Instead of geo-location neutural wording such as Traditional Chinese.
b. The license text is "創用 CC" while Creative Commons in Hong Kong are commonly known as 共享創意 in media, government official policy address / documents or online context.

In fact, I think we can use the Chinese (Taiwan) one if we can display 共享創意 depends on geo-location or language code. How would you think we should address this?

---

Another thing we wish to address is currently https://creativecommons.org/choose/?lang=zh_HK which some sites used before for CC 3.0 are now showing the same translation with 1 above, which is another confusion. Please suggest how can we change it too.

[peterspdx]

Hi Ben,

I think this is a question that should be put to the full group working on the 4.0 and CC0 translations. In the end, we should have a Simplified Chinese translation of the license and CC0 deeds, and a Traditional Chinese translation of the licenses and CC0 deeds. I'd like to have the full group that SooHyun just emailed to schedule a call to discuss during the call. Also, so you're aware we use the same deed for all versions of the same license. Not sure if your last point bears on that, but in case it does I just want to be sure you understand that's how our deeds are designed to work.

I suspect that what we'll need to do is have the translation teams review the existing deeds as translated (in full or in part) and make appropriate adjustments as part of the work to complete the CC0 and 4.0 translations.

I'll alert SooHyun on the main thread. Thanks for raising this to our attention.

[chpapa]

@peterspdx We had discussed it over a translation meeting in Beijing on this, and we have agreed that it would be the best to have a different license chooser for Taipei (zh_TW) and Hong Kong (zh_HK) while we sticks with the same (Traditional Chinese) for license terms / deeds for now.

Other options considered are having zh_Hants for license chooser and redirect zh_TW and zh_HK to it, but the problem is since License chooser is for end users, and the terms used by Taiwan and Hong Kong to describe the License are quite different, make it one would just confuse users. For deeds, we agreed that we will add brackets ( ) for key terms which Taiwan and Hong Kong are different heavily to the extend it makes understanding difficult, if having two versions of deeds are impossible.

So how shall we proceed with this? (BTW, great works on the new CC website!)

(The attendees included in the discussion are Ben Cheng from Hong Kong, Lucien Lin and Yihsuan Lin from Taiwan, Soohyuen and Chunyan Wang from China Mainland)

[peterspdx]

@chpapa Subject to any comments that mattl may have, I agree that fixing the zh_TW is the best route forward, given the confusion that will ensue if we have zh_Hants for the chooser with redirect. @mattl how should we move forward?

[peterspdx]

@chpapa This has been sitting untouched since Matt L. departed. Our tech team is trying determine if this is still an open issue that requires attention. Can you please provide an update? Thx.

[chpapa]

@peterspdx this issue is still relevant and as confusing as the original issue description explained.

However since I am not in the daily operation of CCHK anymore I think it would better be follow up with Haggen so (haggenso@gmail.com)