Talk:Ursulines of Quebec
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Stormbay in topic Clean up tag
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ursulines of Quebec article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copying
editIs it okay to copy articles word-for-word from other sites?
This article copied WORD-FOR-WORD from: The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York and/or CatholiCity.com © 1996-2007 The Mary Foundation
Makes it easy to create articles fast and boost ones edit count. IP4240207xx 00:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. No, we aren't meant to copy verbatim from other sites. Quotations from others must be indicated as such and the source cited. I just stumbled upon this article and created a link to it from Quebec City but now I better solve the problem of this page's plagiarism. I've never been to this museum but the location has travel website pointers recommending it, and being the "oldest educational institution for women in North America" makes it notable.
- Sigh, I suppose I'll need to rewrite all this in original language now. Birdbrainscan 02:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- A publication date of 1912 means that the text is out-of-copyright; as long as the source is given, there is no problem. There are a lot of articles from the Catholic Ancyclopedia in Wikipedia. It has to be wikified and updated, of course. Eugène van der Pijll 11:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Clean up tag
editThis article could be much improved by shortening/tightening and judicious blue links. If someone wanted this type of detail, they would probably go to the originating source. (As always; my opinion) --Stormbay 21:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)