Template:Did you know nominations/Gas Stripping Tower
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Fuebaey (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Gas Stripping Tower
[edit]
- ... that the Gas Stripping Tower in West End, Brisbane is the only surviving one of its kind in Australia?
Created by Kerry Raymond (talk). Nominated by Shiftchange (talk) at 07:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC).
Earwig's Copyvio Detector reports a 91.9% probability of being a copyright violation of the Heritage Register source ( report ) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Not the nominator or author, but the text you're referring to is CC-by-SA licensed and clearly stated and templated as such in the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- But the copyright policy linked off the source says "The State of Queensland has no objection to this material being reproduced, made available online or electronically provided it is for your personal, non-commercial use, or use within your organisation". The section in bold makes the licence incompatible with Wikipedia's - the text there basically describes CC BY-NC-SA, which not compatible. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. The Queensland Heritage Register is, as the attribution at the bottom of the Wikipedia article makes clear and specifically links to the release of that dataset, licensed as CC-by-SA. The QHR database was specifically released as such after negotiation with Wikipedia editors. I don't want to be rude, but what's the point of having material released as CC-by-SA and citing it correctly if Wikipedians won't read the citations? The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Even so, taking an article verbatim from a single source is still problematic. Drawing information from a second source (eg: Brisbane Riverfront Revival City Tour, Explore Australia) and rewriting in your own words will, all else considered, ultimately result in a better article. Why take the risk? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- As per the DYK rules, "text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded both from the 1,500 minimum character count for new articles... " So endorse Ritchie333's assessment. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification User:Redtigerxyz. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
