To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Man, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Isle of Man 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.
It is mentioned Percy was appointed Constable of England on King Henry IV coronation (1399). However the article Lord High Constable of England does not list Percy as one. Reference (and correspondent change) is needed, here or there. ירון (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, Lord of Mann.jpg Nominated for Deletion
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
I have restored the article to its state before most of the content was replaced by a copy of “Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland” from the Dictionary of National Biography (as found at Luminarium). I have tried to redo the changes made elsewhere in the article since last October, by User:Brendandh and User:NinaGreen in particular–but unfortunately most of the material they wikified had to go.—Odysseus1479 07:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This seems an opportunity for me to ask for clarification of Wikipedia's policy re copying of articles from the old DNB, which is available on WikiSource. In this case, the article on Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland, is available on WikiSource at . I've seen a number of articles on Wikipedia which have been copied directly from the old DNB, and as long as there is an attribution notice, there appears to be no problem with them. Could you clarify for me whether that's the case, i.e. there's no problem with copying an article from the old DNB as long as it's available on WikiSource, and as long as an attribution notice is placed on the article giving credit to the old DNB? I don't plan to do this myself. I'm merely asking about the practice, which seems to have been fairly widespread in the past, and whether it's still considered acceptable, and where one can find Wikipedia policy on this point. A follow-up question: Was the material which has been reverted actually from Luminarium (which itself used the old DNB), or was the material which has been reverted actually from the old DNB on WikiSource, and not taken second-hand from Luminarium? I should be able to figure this out for myself, but can't seem to get to the original version of this Wikipedia article for comparison purposes. NinaGreen (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I don’t know exactly what the policy is, although I imagine properly attributed use of the material is OK. I think I’ve seen articles based on the 1911 Britannica with a special banner or notice at the foot, so something similar ought to work for the DNB, assuming their copyright status is the same. Anyway, I think I know whom to ask for a clarification, and will do so … I don‘t know if it actually came from Luminarium: that was the source that Copyvio Detector identified.
I’m not sure what you mean by “the original version“. You should be able to get to any previous version from the History page, by clicking the edit’s time-stamp. For its state immediately before my reversion, that’s 02:41, 9 June 2013, currently in the second row from the top. The very first version is at 21:34, 12 January 2004. The current article body comes from 06:01, 24 September 2012.
One of my reasons for boldly reverting the changes was the way the existing body—‘stubby‘ though it may have been–had been overwritten without comment. IMO it’s one thing to start an article with text from a public-domain source (assuming it‘s attributed properly & otherwise legit), and quite another to replace others’ work with such material. I recognize that I’ve had to do something similar, but I considered it the lesser of two evils. I would not object to being reverted, however, if the DNG material is in fact permitted—assuming something appropriate is done to credit the source.
I’ve looked around some more, and at WP:PLAG I found Category:Attribution templates, which includes Template:DNB. So it appears the DNB content can be used if the sections that came from there are appropriately tagged. I’d be prepared to check the previous version of the article against the Wikisource version, to make sure it’s not from another, possibly non-free edition. Would that be preferable? Ideally I think that if the material is used it should be condensed somewhat, rewritten in a more modern and less gossipy style, to augment the present text rather than replace it. But I’d just as soon add a link to Wikisource instead. I’d be interested in others’ thoughts on the matter.—Odysseus1479 03:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking further into this. Could you check to see whether the previous version came more or less straight from the old DNB at Wikisource, rather than second-hand via Luminarium? If so, and the text were restored, I'd be prepared to do some rewriting. NinaGreen (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I’m now pretty sure the copy came from Luminarium (or a shared source), because of the three footnotes converting to 2008 currency, which of course are recent additions, and match word for word. They’d be trivial to update, however, and I believe the text itself is the same as the Wikisource version, except where tweaked by WP editors. (I can‘t vouch for every word, but I gave all three versions a fairly careful parallel reading.) Anyway, it would be great if you could boil it down some–perhaps you could do that in your user space, and work it into the current text in chunks.—Odysseus1479 06:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)