Talk:Barrio Santa Rosa (Tucson, Arizona)

development

If others could hold off on expressing their interest in this new article for a little while, I will comment here when I reach a good stopping point. --doncram 15:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, interested others, for holding off. Okay, to comment briefly about this version.

• About its length: It's a short article, labelled as a stub which implicitly calls for development. According to wp:DYKcheck its "Prose size (text only)" is "784 characters (118 words) 'readable prose size'". That does not include the blockquote. For another article I created recently and nominated for DYK, one or more editors conveyed their belief in edit summaries and elsewhere that the article was padded by me for DYK by another long blockquote. And believed that reducing the blockquote disqualified the article from DYK. That was incorrect; DYK eligibility is not affected by blockquotes; that article otherwise already met DYK eligibility. If you disbelieve me, install DYKcheck in your wikipedia account and apply it to previous versions of that article.
• About the blockquote:
  • It is not a copyright violation, because the quoted material is in the public domain. The material is written and published by the U.S. government.
  • It is not plagiarism, because there is explicit crediting of the source. Plagiarism is when material is used without proper crediting for content or for wording. I happen to resent assertions that i have ever plagiarized anything. If you are not entirely clear in your own knowledge about plagiarism, please read up on the topic before making accusations. I recommend wp:plagiarism, a Wikipedia content guideline that I helped develop. Please take to heart that guideline's admonition: "Please use care to frame concerns in an appropriate way, as an accusation of plagiarism is a serious charge."
  • It could be replaced by original new text reworded from that quoted material or drawing from the other sources included in the article. Well, you don't have to point that out, do you? That is obviously true. However, the quote is relevant and appropriately explains the significance of the district. Using their own words is a good way to convey why the National Park Service chose to list the district.

I'll stop here. --doncram 17:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the "Under Construction" tag and do welcome any editor improving the article, including if that involves reducing or eliminating the blockquote. --doncram 19:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't written by the NPS, it was trimmed down from what the Arizona Historic Preservation Office supplied in the application, and the copyright notice at http://www.pr.state.az.us/find/privacy.html#copyright states clearly that works of the Arizona State Parks office are not in the public domain.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that the NPS text is an edited summary based on the nomination document, as is the case for all other NRHP "Featured listing" summaries. It is written by the NPS in the sense that it is chosen and edited and published by the NPS. Wikipedia can rely upon the public domain status of this NPS text. See NPS website disclaimer page which states "Information created or owned by the NPS and presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by applicable law." NPS does not indicate the summary is not in the public domain, therefore it is in the public domain. You could understand it as NPS having already negotiated with Arizona State Parks to obtain permission for the NPS to put that summary text into the public domain. --doncram 20:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I just kicked it over to MRG for an expert opinion. I think I correctly summarized the dispute there -- let me know if you think I presented it incorrectly, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You asked so I will say: I do object to your presentation. I don't understand exactly what you mean by your parenthetical remark about me there, but it seems derogatory and possibly biasing. I would appreciate if you would delete that, and for MRG, if she comes here, to attempt to disregard whatever you were trying to convey by the tone in that. --doncram 21:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I was just acknowledging that people may think that I should just stay the hell away from your edits - it wasn't meant to bias the discussion in any way. I trust MRG to make the right calls in copyright issues, regardless of surrounding conduct issues. (Just removed it per your request.) Any objections to my summary of the issue at hand, leaving that aside?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting that. Otherwise, well, also, I am not clear on whether it is established that the Arizona State Parks is the author of the NRHP nomination document, or owns its copyright, so I am not sure of your characterization of that. It might not matter much for your concern if the copyright is owned by Arizona or if it is owned by its actual author or by some other entity, but I am not clear on who does own its copyright. To be clear, you are citing an Arizona copyright webpage as relevant, while the material quoted is directly from a U.S. government webpage, not from the nomination document (copyright ownership not clear) or from an Arizona webpage.

Anyhow, this nomination was in fact written by Morgan Rieder, self-identified as a historic preservation consultant (page 19 in the document). If a consultant does work-for-hire, the copyright would usually be owned by the government or other entity contracting for the work. As was determined to be the case for a bunch of church nominations commissioned in Puerto Rico, which allowed the Puerto Rico NRHP office to give copyright permission over to wikipedia in one big OTRS permission, while it did not have the ability to do that for various other nomination documents, covered in one past copyright/OTRS discussion in which I was involved, by the way. Arizona state officials signed off on this nomination, but so do state officials everywhere; their stamping it does not change its copyright. It is true that copyright of NRHP nominations is not ceded to the U.S. by dint of the application being submitted to the U.S. I am just not understanding what is the source of your view that the nomination document's copyright. --doncram 22:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

MRG says that it's a derivative work of the original, so we can't rely on it being usable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. MRG did not look into it properly, which I know because a) she came to the wrong conclusion, and b) she says she did not look into it properly. I am not convinced by your pressure here, that there is any problem. I am going to restore the quote to the article. I don't know if you seriously believe that the text is not PD, or whether you are just pressing here for the sake of pressing any negative claim you can make. You don't claim any expertise here, though. I do claim some expertise, from having long worked with these type of questions, and I don't accept your finding one person (MRG) unwilling to testify clearly either way without properly looking, as proof that i am wrong. If you do seriously believe that there is a problem here, I suggest you look up procedure to raise a copyright violation question in a proper forum. --doncram 01:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barrio Santa Rosa (Tucson, Arizona). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425233350/http://www.sunset.com/travel/southwest/best-new-city-neighborhood-barrio-santa-rosa-00400000012823/print-index.html to http://www.sunset.com/travel/southwest/best-new-city-neighborhood-barrio-santa-rosa-00400000012823/print-index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)