Talk:Cuyahoga Valley National Park
|WikiProject Protected areas||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject United States / Ohio||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
Everybody seems to agree that Cuyahoga means "Crooked River", but in the article about the river itself the indian language is given as Iriquios. Here it is given as Mohawk. Which is it? Or is it both?Hx823 (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a couple of Wiki CSS classes to WikiTables to make them collapsible and sortable. Depending on what other contributors think: none, some, or all (tables) can be collapsed by default. LeheckaG (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Copied material in this article, to be identified and quoted, or removed
There's a problematic tag with note in this article "This article incorporates text from a National Park Service website (http://www.nps.gov/archive/cuva/planavisit/todo/recreation/ohioerie.htm) that is a public domain work of the United States Government." That URL does not work. What is the URL that was meant?
And, if there is copied text or other copied material in this article, I believe it should be put in quotes and directly attributed, or it should be removed, so that removing this tag would then be justified.
- I don't see what is wrong with a tag noting some text is borrowed from the government. There are many tags that do this, as well as the 100s of 1911 Brittanica tags out there. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's a big discussion. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism's talk page and prior discussions linked from that page. But briefly, it is widely (but not at all unanimously) regarded as a mistake for wikipedia to have included eb1911 material in, the way it did, rather than keeping track of the specific material more clearly. And it has caused a lot of work. There are people still working at removing 1911 material. Similar material from DANFS is often included in ships articles. I've played a role in ensuring that such material gets removed from ships articles that are going through GA and FA reviews, and I think the consensus is now that such material must be removed (or quoted just like any other quoted material from non-PD sources). The only benefit for wikipedia of material being PD, as I see it, is that you can justify much longer quotations, if you want to have a very long quotation, beyond what would be justified by "fair use" for copyrighted material. It is basically irrelevant that material is PD, because it still ought to be quoted and sourced directly. However, there are many who do cut and paste PD material in, and that causes a lot of work and, in my view, undermines the quality and credibility of wikipedia. It is not a copyright violation, so it is not illegal; the issue is proper attribution and, in broad terms, plagiarism. Plagiarism is a loaded term for many, but I use the term to refer to situations where attribution is less specific than is appropriate. In the case of cut-and-pasted text from a PD source, a tag and a link to a website provides general attribution that is of a level suitable for the website being a general source, but it does not specifically credit wording to the author / website. The specific passages' wording should be attributed, and that is traditionally done by using quotation marks or indented quote passages, with footnotes following. Or, if you don't want to give such credit, you should reword to avoid the necessity. doncram (talk) 19:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
This article reads like a brouchure.
This article has large chunks lifted from the NPS site. Specifically, the section on the tow path. That section has several problems, including two identical references to the same source, which don't work; a vacuous statement about the towpath "connecting" "through one of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park visitor centers."; and a lack of any specific information. I am going to do an edit to include some useful information.Abitslow (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)