Talk:Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Environment (Rated High-importance)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

History[edit]

I am split between policies: should the history be retained for attribution purposes or deleted as copyvio. I have restored some of the history. If any other admin feels like wading through and doing a different set of selective deletions of copyvio stuff, I have no objection. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Findings[edit]

For the moment at least, I have commented out the findings section as a copyvio from here. Possibly an acceptable treatment would be to present these findings in a {{quote box}}. failing that they should be paraphrased. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I had placed the quoted material within quote marks and attributed the source. Is that insufficient to avoid copyvio issues? I waded through a lot of policy and guideline pages to figure out what the best way of quoting copyrighted material would be but I am none the wiser. So is a quote box somehow used as a method of avoiding potential copyvio problems? If a quote box is needed to avoid copyvio issues then I feel that is what should be done. The MA findings are quite important and rather than trying to paraphrase some succinct text it should be added verbatim. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Stubbing?[edit]

I don't understand what has been happening to this article. What's this business about a "deleted version" that needed replacing? Who deleted it? Where is the deletion discussion? Where was the proposal to delete it listed so concerned editors could have some input? Why has it been so ruthlessly stubbed? It needs expanding, not stubbing. The findings belong in a quote box. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio material (added in 2012) was deleted. All the older stuff is still in the history. Guettarda (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)