Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from List of speakers of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 September 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
As noted on Commons, works by the government are copyrighted for 60 years. As such, the reuse of the wording from this website qualifies as a copyvio. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution of India, which originally determined the roles, was published in 1949. Thus, this Indian work is in the public domain in India because its copyright has expired. This governmental work, was published more than 60 years ago (that is before January 1, 1964). For more info, click here and check out Template:PD-India. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've noted at the DYK nomination for this article, the current website does not host the constitution in its original form, but a derivative work which has been turned into prose. I believe that this is enough creative input to render the derivative work copyrighted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but even if it is, I had changed it enough to be regarded as an article which would pass copyright. The only problem was with the huge number of occurrences of duplicated phrases such as "to the deputy speaker" which I do not believe can be fixed. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 04:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is possible to rephrase things further, to make the copyright status clearer. Order of clauses and whatnot. As has been noted numerous times, WP tries to be conservative when it comes to copyright. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can see from this diff that the one on the left was a sure copyvio due to extremely close paraphrasing (the revision Crisco 1492 (talk·contribs) marked {{copypaste}}), but the one on the right is not (the revision just before Crisco marked it for copyvio). Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried my best...would like to hear suggestions from your side. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the first result in the duplication detector above, we could write something like this. "The Deputy Speaker presides in cases where the election takes place towards the end of a Vidhan Sabha. The candidates are voted on and decided, by division if necessary, in the order in which their motions are moved and seconded. Once a motion is carried, the person who is presiding declares the chosen candidate to be Speaker of the House, without latter motions being voted upon. Once the results are announced, the Chief Minister and Leader of the Opposition escort the Speaker elect to the Chair." Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be fixed further...have the redundant matches now are from two completely different parts of the page. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I can't fix it any further, and neither believe it should be. The automated duplicate detector even says that "the Constitution of India" is duplicated. How else is it to be referred (In know, "Indian constitution" but many Indians prefer the former)? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is improbable. I didn't try the DD with four words because I knew the matches would be far more because it even matches terms (rather section headers) like "Term of Office" and even some info from the ref. I believe the editors should have the liberty of using such phrases like "may at any time" even though they are contained in the sources. It is impossible to change each and every word and have a clean DD. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a clean DD, just one that shows no close paraphrasing. Obviously we aren't going to change "the Constitution of India" every time it shows up, but if the source says "he was one of the many signers of the Constitution of India" and our article says "he was one of the signers of the Constitution of India", that's close paraphrasing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the removals of Minimac are concerned, he may have removed info in his first edit not knowing /Temp existed. And the second one, I do believe we can duplicate info from other articles. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info, but not the wording. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better to me. I'd suggest contacting Minimac for confirmation, as s/he is more experienced. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
