Template talk:GFDL - Revision history

Hexvoodoo: 9 revision(s)

2007-11-08T10:09:46Z

9 revision(s)

← Older revision	Revision as of 10:09, 8 November 2007
(No difference)

Hexvoodoo: /* Sometimes it is just a specific section */

2007-10-19T22:12:15Z

Sometimes it is just a specific section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:12, 19 October 2007
Line 15:		Line 15:

	:::::::: It is only reliable if you also copy the references (which are the reliable sources), but what can we do that the issues discussed in this site tend not to have any references. -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 07:08, 19 October 2007 (PDT)		:::::::: It is only reliable if you also copy the references (which are the reliable sources), but what can we do that the issues discussed in this site tend not to have any references. -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 07:08, 19 October 2007 (PDT)

			:::::::::when one imports a WP article, he should be importing any references in that article too. there aren't many good references for this subject - we just have to make do with what we have. i tried to get model interviews because that gives accurate information. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 15:12, 19 October 2007 (PDT)

Biguns: /* Sometimes it is just a specific section */

2007-10-19T14:08:11Z

Sometimes it is just a specific section

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:08, 19 October 2007
Line 13:		Line 13:

	:::::::i don't think publicly editable means 0% reliable. if that were the case then both wikipedia and boobpedia would be worthless. i don't think we've had any serious problems with importing false data from WP. if something is found out to be incorrect later, we simply correct it. no need to delete talk page discussions unless it's vandalism. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 15:27, 17 October 2007 (PDT)		:::::::i don't think publicly editable means 0% reliable. if that were the case then both wikipedia and boobpedia would be worthless. i don't think we've had any serious problems with importing false data from WP. if something is found out to be incorrect later, we simply correct it. no need to delete talk page discussions unless it's vandalism. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 15:27, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

			:::::::: It is only reliable if you also copy the references (which are the reliable sources), but what can we do that the issues discussed in this site tend not to have any references. -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 07:08, 19 October 2007 (PDT)

Hexvoodoo at 22:27, 17 October 2007

2007-10-17T22:27:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 17 October 2007
Line 11:		Line 11:

	:::::: Wikipedia wanting 100% reliable sources is an acadamic demand, but accepting 0% reliable sources (i.e. publically editable) sources is the other extreme. Anyway, if you just support <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki> without writing it in the help (and we could even delete this discussion), than those who shall use it will be such users who you can trust they know what they're doing, and we'd both be happy. -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 12:12, 17 October 2007 (PDT)		:::::: Wikipedia wanting 100% reliable sources is an acadamic demand, but accepting 0% reliable sources (i.e. publically editable) sources is the other extreme. Anyway, if you just support <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki> without writing it in the help (and we could even delete this discussion), than those who shall use it will be such users who you can trust they know what they're doing, and we'd both be happy. -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 12:12, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

			:::::::i don't think publicly editable means 0% reliable. if that were the case then both wikipedia and boobpedia would be worthless. i don't think we've had any serious problems with importing false data from WP. if something is found out to be incorrect later, we simply correct it. no need to delete talk page discussions unless it's vandalism. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 15:27, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

Biguns: /* Sometimes it is just a specific section */

2007-10-17T19:12:46Z

Sometimes it is just a specific section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 17 October 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:::: Before I create a new one, what about allowing using <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki>? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 19:15, 16 October 2007 (PDT)		:::: Before I create a new one, what about allowing using <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki>? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 19:15, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

	::i have a couple of thoughts. one, boobpedia does not disallow using wikipedia as a reference. wikipedia has some very anal rules about referencing and attribution which are fine for academic research, but are not suited to non-academic subjects. two, having a section by section "this section is based on..." disclaimer is just ugly. imagine having one clear section, another section with the disclaimer, then a clear section, then another section with the disclaimer, it's just unsightly. if we do a verbatim copy of a WP article or a significant portion of it, we use the GFDL notice. if it's just one section, i'd much prefer that the editor does some rewriting and reference the WP article instead. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 21:09, 16 October 2007 (PDT)		:::::i have a couple of thoughts. one, boobpedia does not disallow using wikipedia as a reference. wikipedia has some very anal rules about referencing and attribution which are fine for academic research, but are not suited to non-academic subjects. two, having a section by section "this section is based on..." disclaimer is just ugly. imagine having one clear section, another section with the disclaimer, then a clear section, then another section with the disclaimer, it's just unsightly. if we do a verbatim copy of a WP article or a significant portion of it, we use the GFDL notice. if it's just one section, i'd much prefer that the editor does some rewriting and reference the WP article instead. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 21:09, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

			:::::: Wikipedia wanting 100% reliable sources is an acadamic demand, but accepting 0% reliable sources (i.e. publically editable) sources is the other extreme. Anyway, if you just support <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki> without writing it in the help (and we could even delete this discussion), than those who shall use it will be such users who you can trust they know what they're doing, and we'd both be happy. -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 12:12, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

Hexvoodoo at 04:09, 17 October 2007

2007-10-17T04:09:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:09, 17 October 2007
Line 7:		Line 7:
	::: Even Wikipedia's own admins would tell you it's not a referal point. But that aside, sometimes just a whole section is taken verbatim. Do you mind if I create a new template just for that scenerio, then? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 12:12, 14 October 2007 (PDT)		::: Even Wikipedia's own admins would tell you it's not a referal point. But that aside, sometimes just a whole section is taken verbatim. Do you mind if I create a new template just for that scenerio, then? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 12:12, 14 October 2007 (PDT)
	:::: Before I create a new one, what about allowing using <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki>? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 19:15, 16 October 2007 (PDT)		:::: Before I create a new one, what about allowing using <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki>? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 19:15, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

			::i have a couple of thoughts. one, boobpedia does not disallow using wikipedia as a reference. wikipedia has some very anal rules about referencing and attribution which are fine for academic research, but are not suited to non-academic subjects. two, having a section by section "this section is based on..." disclaimer is just ugly. imagine having one clear section, another section with the disclaimer, then a clear section, then another section with the disclaimer, it's just unsightly. if we do a verbatim copy of a WP article or a significant portion of it, we use the GFDL notice. if it's just one section, i'd much prefer that the editor does some rewriting and reference the WP article instead. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 21:09, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

Biguns: /* Sometimes it is just a specific section */

2007-10-17T02:15:40Z

Sometimes it is just a specific section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:15, 17 October 2007
Line 6:		Line 6:

	::: Even Wikipedia's own admins would tell you it's not a referal point. But that aside, sometimes just a whole section is taken verbatim. Do you mind if I create a new template just for that scenerio, then? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 12:12, 14 October 2007 (PDT)		::: Even Wikipedia's own admins would tell you it's not a referal point. But that aside, sometimes just a whole section is taken verbatim. Do you mind if I create a new template just for that scenerio, then? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 12:12, 14 October 2007 (PDT)
			:::: Before I create a new one, what about allowing using <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki>? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 19:15, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

Biguns at 19:12, 14 October 2007

2007-10-14T19:12:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 14 October 2007
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Can an admin please change the phrase "this article" into '''"this ''section or'' article"'''? Thanks! -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 09:01, 12 October 2007 (PDT)		Can an admin please change the phrase "this article" into '''"this ''section or'' article"'''? Thanks! -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 09:01, 12 October 2007 (PDT)

	currently this template is only used if an article is started as a verbatim copy from wikipedia. if information from wikipedia is added later, it should be like referencing from other websites. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 12:53, 12 October 2007 (PDT)		::currently this template is only used if an article is started as a verbatim copy from wikipedia. if information from wikipedia is added later, it should be like referencing from other websites. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 12:53, 12 October 2007 (PDT)

			::: Even Wikipedia's own admins would tell you it's not a referal point. But that aside, sometimes just a whole section is taken verbatim. Do you mind if I create a new template just for that scenerio, then? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 12:12, 14 October 2007 (PDT)

Hexvoodoo at 19:53, 12 October 2007

2007-10-12T19:53:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:53, 12 October 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Can an admin please change the phrase "this article" into '''"this ''section or'' article"'''? Thanks! -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 09:01, 12 October 2007 (PDT)		Can an admin please change the phrase "this article" into '''"this ''section or'' article"'''? Thanks! -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 09:01, 12 October 2007 (PDT)

			currently this template is only used if an article is started as a verbatim copy from wikipedia. if information from wikipedia is added later, it should be like referencing from other websites. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 12:53, 12 October 2007 (PDT)

Biguns: Sometimes it is just a specific section

2007-10-12T16:01:05Z

Sometimes it is just a specific section

New page

== Sometimes it is just a specific section ==

Can an admin please change the phrase "this article" into '''"this ''section or'' article"'''? Thanks! -[[User:Biguns|Biguns]] 09:01, 12 October 2007 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 17 October 2007
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:::: Before I create a new one, what about allowing using <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki>? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 19:15, 16 October 2007 (PDT)		:::: Before I create a new one, what about allowing using <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki>? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 19:15, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

	::i have a couple of thoughts. one, boobpedia does not disallow using wikipedia as a reference. wikipedia has some very anal rules about referencing and attribution which are fine for academic research, but are not suited to non-academic subjects. two, having a section by section "this section is based on..." disclaimer is just ugly. imagine having one clear section, another section with the disclaimer, then a clear section, then another section with the disclaimer, it's just unsightly. if we do a verbatim copy of a WP article or a significant portion of it, we use the GFDL notice. if it's just one section, i'd much prefer that the editor does some rewriting and reference the WP article instead. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 21:09, 16 October 2007 (PDT)		:::::i have a couple of thoughts. one, boobpedia does not disallow using wikipedia as a reference. wikipedia has some very anal rules about referencing and attribution which are fine for academic research, but are not suited to non-academic subjects. two, having a section by section "this section is based on..." disclaimer is just ugly. imagine having one clear section, another section with the disclaimer, then a clear section, then another section with the disclaimer, it's just unsightly. if we do a verbatim copy of a WP article or a significant portion of it, we use the GFDL notice. if it's just one section, i'd much prefer that the editor does some rewriting and reference the WP article instead. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 21:09, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

			:::::: Wikipedia wanting 100% reliable sources is an acadamic demand, but accepting 0% reliable sources (i.e. publically editable) sources is the other extreme. Anyway, if you just support <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki> without writing it in the help (and we could even delete this discussion), than those who shall use it will be such users who you can trust they know what they're doing, and we'd both be happy. -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 12:12, 17 October 2007 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:09, 17 October 2007
Line 7:		Line 7:
	::: Even Wikipedia's own admins would tell you it's not a referal point. But that aside, sometimes just a whole section is taken verbatim. Do you mind if I create a new template just for that scenerio, then? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 12:12, 14 October 2007 (PDT)		::: Even Wikipedia's own admins would tell you it's not a referal point. But that aside, sometimes just a whole section is taken verbatim. Do you mind if I create a new template just for that scenerio, then? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 12:12, 14 October 2007 (PDT)
	:::: Before I create a new one, what about allowing using <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki>? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 19:15, 16 October 2007 (PDT)		:::: Before I create a new one, what about allowing using <nowiki>{{GFDL\|section}}</nowiki>? -[[User:Biguns\|Biguns]] 19:15, 16 October 2007 (PDT)

			::i have a couple of thoughts. one, boobpedia does not disallow using wikipedia as a reference. wikipedia has some very anal rules about referencing and attribution which are fine for academic research, but are not suited to non-academic subjects. two, having a section by section "this section is based on..." disclaimer is just ugly. imagine having one clear section, another section with the disclaimer, then a clear section, then another section with the disclaimer, it's just unsightly. if we do a verbatim copy of a WP article or a significant portion of it, we use the GFDL notice. if it's just one section, i'd much prefer that the editor does some rewriting and reference the WP article instead. --[[User:Hexvoodoo\|Hexvoodoo]] 21:09, 16 October 2007 (PDT)