Talk:Charles Street, Wrexham
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
OGL attribution
[edit]@DankJae: hi, thank you for creating this article. your use of {{OGL-attribution}} tags in this article appears to be incorrect, because the OGL license appears to be invalid, and because you have not copied text from external sources. I can see no indication of an OGL on the linked pages or in Cadw's terms and conditions webpage.[1] The Open Government Licence does not apply automatically to government works, but must be explicitly released. Also, attribution templates should only be used when text has been incorporated into a Wikipedia article from an external source which you have not done here. I will remove these tags. Have you made similar edits elsewhere? Verbcatcher (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oops, I have just found Cadw's copyright notice,[2] which includes the OGL. However, my other point applies because you have not copied Cadw's text. Sorry for any confusion. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher, tbh just did it in-case I couldn't paraphrase too much while writing it, as concerns with past close paraphrasing with Cadw was brought up on another article, so felt it easier and safer just to include the attribution should I need it. Wouldn't mind the template be removed. Sometimes Cadw is the only (easily found/detailed) source for a listed building, so minimal room to paraphrase, although I have also opted to just not write much from Cadw instead, cutting out anything majorly architectural. So I guess tagging it was too much, just wanted to be safe then risk a copyvio. DankJae 01:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @DankJae: I checked these sources using toolforge and saw no copying. Cheers, Verbcatcher (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher, true but sometimes I didn't trust the results, as another editor read a paragraph and still saw the similarities. Plus I swear not too long ago, it never analysed Cadw, in a few comparisons where Cadw was the main source, it wasn't listed at all on Earwig. And the fact that I few times I've been tagged for potential copyvio by edit filters, when Earwig said there wasn't any copyvio above 10%. DankJae 01:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher, removed it from all articles I made listed under Category:Open Government Licence attribution. DankJae 02:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher, true but sometimes I didn't trust the results, as another editor read a paragraph and still saw the similarities. Plus I swear not too long ago, it never analysed Cadw, in a few comparisons where Cadw was the main source, it wasn't listed at all on Earwig. And the fact that I few times I've been tagged for potential copyvio by edit filters, when Earwig said there wasn't any copyvio above 10%. DankJae 01:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @DankJae: I checked these sources using toolforge and saw no copying. Cheers, Verbcatcher (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Verbcatcher, tbh just did it in-case I couldn't paraphrase too much while writing it, as concerns with past close paraphrasing with Cadw was brought up on another article, so felt it easier and safer just to include the attribution should I need it. Wouldn't mind the template be removed. Sometimes Cadw is the only (easily found/detailed) source for a listed building, so minimal room to paraphrase, although I have also opted to just not write much from Cadw instead, cutting out anything majorly architectural. So I guess tagging it was too much, just wanted to be safe then risk a copyvio. DankJae 01:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)