Talk:The Fall of Arthur

Going on sale May 2013

See here: http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/Titles/79908/the-fall-of-arthur-j-r-r-tolkien-9780007489947

The book is set to be published by HarperCollins in May. Someone should update this page and get it up to par. --V2Blast (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just tagged this article for possible copy-vio. Looks like a copy/paste from that site. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Tolkien Gateway

The version of the article I took from tolkiengateway.net is mostly due to User:Morgan. It is published under the GFDL. --dab (𒁳) 19:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately GFDL-only text must not longer be imported to Wikipedia. This has been enacted with the dual licensing of Wikipedia text to GFDL and Creative Commons. See also Wikipedia:GFDL. Therefore I have restored the redirect. De728631 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

well this is interesting, as I had spent years contributing to the project under the GFDL, and I have never agreed to dual-licencing any of my contributions. So you are saying most of Wikipedia must be deleted, then? I am serious. I did contribute, beginning 2004, under the GFDL and the GFDL only. Either they can re-issue my stuff under a dual licence, but then by the very same mechanism this works with this (let's face it, very trivial) paragraph. Or they cannot, but then they will have to ditch many thousands of articles that were begun prior to the licence change. It's one or the other. --dab (𒁳) 21:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Existing text doesn't have to be deleted, otherwise there would've been a major purge in 2009. I don't know any details but you might also want to read Wikipedia:Licensing update for more information. It says that while "any GFDL-only submissions will no longer be accepted... GFDL will be retained as a secondary license." De728631 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't work this way. "Existing text" isn't a meaningful category. The text I copied also "exists", it just happens to be hosted elsewhere. The entire point is that the contributor retains the full copyright of their text, but grants everyone (including Wikipedia) the right to use it and build on it, irrevocably. There is no legal difference between a text I posted on Wikipedia in 2007, and any text posted under the GFDL anywhere on the internet. This is exactly why I was opposed to the licence change, and did not agree to relicence any of my contributions.

I do feel this is important, and of course this isn't the place to discuss it. We are talking about a very trivial description of an upcoming book that I could rewrite in less time than it takes debating this. I could also just ask User:Morgan to submit her text here which she would no doubt be willing to do. This is about the whole legal mess Wikipedia finds itself in since the relicencing. Once you have taken it upon yourself to blatantly violate the rights of all your contributors over five years, you are in a much worse moral position to decry people's copyright violations. --dab (𒁳) 07:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal mess aside, thanks a lot for rewriting the article. Let's see if we can add some reviews in a few weeks. De728631 (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(Referring to the first post by User:De728631:) Fascinating to see that I get to be mentioned here at Wikipedia! ;-) --Morgan TG (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a small world. :-D De728631 (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)