Notice templates[edit source]

Would we benefit from a generic notice template (i.e. like {{Attrib Beyond Dams}} but not accepting the source and author as arguments), to make it easier to port material from various sources?

Or on second thoughts... it may be better to have a basic template, which can be called by other more specific templates, which add the specific source and author details. --Singkong2005 (now known as Chriswaterguy) · talk 01:41, 16 November 2006 (PST)

I thought about this. It could work, but we'd either need one very flexible template, or a couple of different templates. Some porting is from web pages, some from docs, some have clear authorship, some just have publishers, yada yada. I don't mind separate templates for a while, since they're pretty easy to copy/paste to create a new one. Perhaps after a little more porting we will know what different generic templates would be required. --CurtB 09:56, 16 November 2006 (PST)

Prestarted porting pages?[edit source]

Here is one thought that I've had: perhaps we should actually create the target page for porting, and add a link to the source page or source document, potentially some categorization, and a notice that permission has already been granted, and that porting is desired. And, of course, pointers to tips on porting (perhaps the help page for this talk page, which I haven't viewed yet!). I think that might lower the barrier to porting assistance. --CurtB 09:56, 16 November 2006 (PST)

How exact must the "original" be?[edit source]

In some cases, the formatting of the original pages is hard to reproduce consistently in Wikimedia. In particular, I think of image positioning and pagination. In such cases, there may be references such as "(see picture at right)" which is dangerous given that wiki page layout depends on things like skin and browser window size. Similarly with "(see highlighted graphic on page 4)". I would argue that making subtle changes in these references, such as "see photo #3", where the photo is captioned "photo #3", is the right approach. But it means that the "original" is not a strict duplicate. Given that we should also reference the true original itself (as long as it's available on the web), I feel we can use this small amount of license. Do we need lawyers? Or is it more a matter of explaining this when we request initial permission from the copyright holders? Thoughts? --CurtB 16:09, 1 December 2006 (PST)

I think that we should just explain this when we get initial permission. We could also mention on the original, using {{Originalported}} or something, that this "original" may have been modified for wikification purposes. BTW Fantastic work as our Porting Authority! --Lonny 17:11, 1 December 2006 (PST)

Porting Red Tape[edit source]

Awesome portings have been taking place! I think that this process for porting is very sound and works well for these pages from established organizations. I also think that it may be overly involved for some potential contributors and some potential portings. I think that we should have a more streamlined option for portings from authors that do not require this type of page accountability. For example, a document that a project builder made and gives up all rights to, stating, "do whatever you want". What do you think? --Lonny 22:12, 6 December 2006 (PST)