Talk:Colchester County, Nova Scotia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Colchester County)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada / Nova Scotia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Nova Scotia.

Delete?[edit] 23:09 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)I'm artson, the editor for and I wrote the bulk of this for DMOZ, or copied it from the Provincial Archives (in the public domain), then entered it here. Use it at will.

Also note that I wrote the other county descriptions for Nova Scotia in the same manner.

Also please note that the Open Directory Project asserts a copyright for anything written by one of their editors, but as the material is from the public domain in Canada (and modified by me), I can hardly see how they may do that. Sue the original publisher of the Provincial Archives in Nova Scotia, Canada maybe? User:Artson

Are you sure that they assert a copyright for anything written by one of their editors? If so, please could you point me to the place where they say that? The licence says that Netscape owns the copyright to the compilation, but I don't think this is quite the same thing. The way in which the articles are organised is something in addition to the articles themselves. Or something like that. On the other hand, if it's true that you've somehow signed away the copyright to the material you contributed, then I don't think we can keep it here... -- Oliver P. 00:26 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Seems to me what the safest thing to do is start with the public domain source again and then modify in a different way than was used for the ODP. Use synonyms, change sentence structure around, that kind of thing. -- ESP 05:35 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Wha...? We've got explicit permission from the author to use it on Wikipedia. Unless the author is lying to us, we can use it on Wikipedia. meta:avoid copyright paranoia. Martin
The point is that the author himself asserted that he might not own the copyright on his own work. (See his third paragraph above.) The relevant question is whether or not we have permission from the copyright holder, not whether or not we have permission from the author. I suspect that in this case they're one and the same, and this is all a big misunderstanding, but since it was the author himself that brought up the assertion that they might not be, I'm not sure we should just dismiss it. -- Uncle Oliver 00:57 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
This is extremely amusing and kind of disconcerting. They are both open content licenses, and their intent (as with the NPL/MPL/GPL) was that they be compatible. I think the author is wrong. He owns the copyright to anything which he tangibly produces until he gives it up--which he has, to us. (BTW, IANAL.)
I will read the license. But it looks like nobody is going to delete it. The GFDL like all GNU licenses, I presume, says that if the original copyright holder (which would be him) releases it, it is released. AOL cannot treat his volunteer work as an employer's work.. they just can't. (If you work for DMOZ, and were doing it on their time, that changes the issue.)
Also, I cast my vote for cooperation. We give attribution to FOLDOC when we use it as well as other sources, but in this case, I do not believe it is neccessary to use a copyright notice.
The EFF would be an excellent consult in this matter as would the FSF.

From Votes for Deletion

Bible Hill[edit]

Change Bible Hill as Incorporated village. see Bluetooth954 04:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The single name articles editor is using as examples to try to change the name of this article are not counties but community articles. Colchester County is not a community, it's a county. Cmr08 (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cmr08 - counties are not regional municipalities, naming conventions and also real-world usage are very different.Skookum1 (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cmr08. Just pointy nominations. -DJSasso (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cmr08 has it nailed IMO. Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.