User talk:Lidos/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Lidos! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 23:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lido

Hi there, bit of an ill-considered move there. You left the talk page redirecting to Lido di Venezia; and many Italian articles pointing to Lido (swimming pool). This kind of move should be discussed first (or requested) at WP:RM. I'd suggest you read WP:MOVE before trying to do any more housekeeping.

I will leave as is for the moment, but the current use is a bit UK centric. Google popularity is not the only criteria to consider when considering page titles. I suspect that someone will ask/move Lido (disambiguation) over Lido - as,

The Lido di Venezia is not the only one in Italy, but the geographic meaning is an important one.
The use of Lido to mean 'swimming pool' seems very specific to the UK

Anyway, I've done my bit with the dustpan and brush - as I said, please consider the wider effects of any moves before doing it again. I read your aspirations, and they do seem very worthy, and I hope you make some inroads on them. Good luck with editing. Kbthompson (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up, I thought I'd caught all the Lido di Venezia usage.

If there is a debate it will probably centre on whether to use the term as a specific or general usage. I would have thought it makes more sense for Wikipedia to adopt the generic form. As for UK-centric or not there may be some mileage on how to set up the disambiguation as these two definitions highlight:

(OED) The name of a spit of land, a famous beach resort near Venice, now used gen. for: such a spit enclosing a lagoon; a bathing-beach or resort; a public open-air swimming-pool.

(Mirram-Webster, noun) a fashionable beach resort.

Though it should be noted that the OED does not actually say the meaning for swimming pool is "British" so other sources may turn up to clarify wider usage and if it may be used more to mean bathing-beach in other countries or purely the land formation sense.--Lidos (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC) - under instruction from Speedoguy

London lidos

If you end up with any articles you're particularly proud of, on lidos within the London area, please feel free to nominate them as the London Portal showcase article of the month. Examples of existing nominations are there, complete with archives of previous nominations. Good luck. Kbthompson (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you KBT for maintaining an interest in our new Lido articles, and for this suggestion - all credit should go to User:Speedoguy, I'm a newbie and just make minor edits or additions.--Lidos (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for "lidos" outside the UK

At the moment Helsinki Swimming Stadium is categorized in Category:Lidos. I'm wondering if this is correct and the Finnish actually use the word (in the same sense) or if there is some confusion over translation. If sources do mention "lido" this may not strictly mean an outdoor pool but refer to a seaside leisure area (potentially including nightclubs and beaches). We could do with a definitive source either way so that either "in the UK" or "in a number of countries" could be added to the category definition. Perhaps you are already aware of a source? A quick search through early newspapers shows that Americans may have used the term but the evidence appears rare (e.g. NY Times 1908, The Victoria Advocate, Texas, 1961 or Hartford Courant, Connecticut 1934 (describing a development in Paris)). Of course it is impossible to prove a negative but a lack of substantial non-UK sources showing lido in use to describe (or even better, officially name) an outdoor swimming pool is probably good enough to limit the category to UK only pools.—Speedoguy (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ken Worpole's book you've already listed on User:Lidos/Sources is a good source, of which I have a copy. It seems Germany, Austria and Switzerland may use the word Lido in the same context as ours, but as there may be others I will email Ken. I think as a subcategory of "Swimming venues in the UK" and the higher category "Swimming venues", Category:Lidos can usefully be limited to UK only.

I will remove the Helsinki pool from this Category, as the Finnish don't use the word in this context. It should be listed under "Olympic size swimming pools" however - see To Do list.--Lidos (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

re: your message

Message: I drafted my first article after some weeks editing pages. Have a look at User:Lidos/Uxbridge Lido. It's got a long way to go yet, citations to be looked up and added, etc.

Hi Lidos, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Marek wrote "I've had a look at the article and I think it's very good. Like you say, it needs a few more citations, but for a first article, I'm impressed. I suggest adding a photo or two if you can, it can really help an article."

Uxbridge Lido

Uxbridge Lido is my first WP article, created from scratch. It was previously at User:Lidos/Uxbridge Lido until made public. You made some changes today which I've looked at under (diff). Some I understand, but if you have a moment could you briefly describe the changes you made and your reasons for them. (Some I may undo!) Many thanks. Style is an art not a fixed set of rules, I understand.--Lidos (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a manual of style that we stick to and editors will change articles to comply with it. Seeing that you were new, I should have linked to it: WP:MOS. MRSC (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather unhelpful, I thought.--Lidos (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Put a note on Talk:Uxbridge Lido of anything that requires clarification. MRSC (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

re: Your Message

Hi Lidos, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Handling text copyright

Considering the problems of the copyright bot at Talk:Parliament_Hill_Lido, I was wondering if the owner would be prepared to add the suggested WP:CC-BY-SA license to particular sub-pages on the www.lidos.org.uk website (excluding images)? Text could then be validly reproduced without arbitrary re-writes. As the license can be qualified on the website, perhaps a small general copyright sub-page referring to the CC-BY-SA license stating that text but not images may be reproduced with attribution in the form of a link back to the www.lidos.org.uk home page and where quoted text has a name next to it on the source page, this should also be reproduced? That would pretty much cover how usage is likely to occur on Wikipedia and www.lidos.org.uk is already referenced on the pages in question.

Alternatively the owner could use the WP:OTRS system to write an email (which, eventually, provides a ticket number to reference) that could probably allow named accounts to use any text from the source website. The problem with this solution is that we would have to reference that ticket and probably debate with the copyright bot for each use.

N.b. as I have not used the OTRS process for this sort of thing, I dropped a note on User talk:Moonriddengirl to see if she has any alternative suggestions. —Speedoguy (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A notice at the website is certainly a usable solution. Complicating things slightly, text that you yourself own copyright to must be co-licensed under GFDL when you import. We only accept CC-By-SA only imports if you are not the copyright owner but have permission or if you are joint copyright owner. Speedoguy can import your text under CC-By-SA, but you cannot. The joys of technicalities. :) (See Wikimedia:Terms of Use.)

Speedoguy is also right about the alternative, a general text release, and about the drawbacks to it. (The copyright bot could make an exception for your site, but that would mean it wouldn't detect it if others copied from your site without authorization.) If you choose to take that option, let me know. I've helped people navigate that process before (I'm an OTRS volunteer) and crafted general release notices which they can use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In terms of practicalities if we went down the OTRS route, if a ticket related for the use of text on a particular webpage (or set of pages) from the source, would I then be able to reference the ticket number on the edit summary and use the text or is there a different process for validly using it (picking up on the word "import")? In particular if the bot doesn't have a waiver for the site, I'm not sure how it would know about the import validity. There may be a good help page that explains this in practical terms but I haven't spotted it yet :) —Speedoguy (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, there is no such page. This situation is relatively rare. :) Give me a second to dredge up an account where I've done this before and I'll give you more details. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the owner of www.lidos.org.uk has had problems in the past with people copying text and images without permission I'm afraid we all will have to stick to arbitrary re-writes for the time being.--Lidos (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, all right. Then I don't need to find an example. Please note, then, that the content must be treated as any other copyrighted text, which means that it must be completely rewritten. We can't use syntax or striking phrases from the original unless these are completely devoid of creativity. The user essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing provides some guidance on avoiding common pitfalls. I have already requested that another administrator review Pells Pool to confirm that the material needs further revision. Some changes are obviously needed: "This was subsequently extended indefinitely in recognition of the PPCA’s success" was copied verbatim from the source. Others are likely to be necessary, as some of this reads like an abridgment of the source. Abridgments are derivative works that require the same level of permission from the copyright holder as a verbatim copy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that Close paraphrasing cross-references fair use. I've followed the guidance somewhat and made the attribution more obvious for Pells Pool. A confirmation about how far to go would be useful, particularly when we are talking about single phrases where there is attribution and less sampling than one might see, for example, in a book review.—Speedoguy (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

←I'm not sure in what way you find it interesting. I work better with direct communication than inference. :) However, if you're asking if you can copy content verbatim or with minimal revision from copyrighted source onto Wikipedia under fair use, you should review non-free content, which is our policy and guideline relating to how non-free material may be used on Wikipedia. Policy requires that content taken directly from copyrighted sources be clearly marked, as by quotation marks or block quote. This is the only acceptable method for utilizing copyrighted text on Wikipedia. Facts, of course, are not copyrighted, and you may use them, so long as you rewrite them completely in your own words and as long as they do not themselves represent creativity in the source. (That's a slightly harder concept to convey, but for example if a source is writing about what makes a subject remarkable, the facts selected to prove this may reflect creativity. A good rule of thumb here is to ask yourself if anyone writing about this subject would choose exactly the same facts in the same order. If the answer is yes, there's probably no creativity involved in their selection.)

As for specific guidance, let's review the following paragraph from the article:

In 1999 a Town meeting was called in response to 4,000 signatory petition objecting to the pool being closed and a skateboard park built. The District Council agreed to run the pool for a season, on the condition that a group of local people formed an organization that would run the pool and plan for the long term. In 2000 the "Pells Pool Campaign" became "Pells Pool Community Association", a charity to run the pool. The Council took ownership from the District Council and agreed to contribute £10,000 per year for three years. This was subsequently extended indefinitely in recognition of the PPCA’s success

The source says:

In March 1999 an extra-ordinary Town meeting was called in response to over 4,000 signatories signing a petition objecting to the announcement that the pool was to be closed and a skateboard park built in its place.... It was agreed that the District Council would run the pool for one more season, on the understanding that a group of local people formed an organization that would work towards running the pool in subsequent years and planning for the longer term.... In May 2000 the Pells Pool Campaign became the ‘Pells Pool Community Association,’ a charity ...to run the pool.... The Town Council...took ownership...from the District Council and agreed to make a contribution of £10,000 per year to the PPCA for three years.... This was subsequently extended indefinitely in recognition of the PPCA’s increasing success...

Perhaps seeing these side by side, with some unused material removed, can make a little more clear potential concerns with abridgment. You have runs of duplicate text and precisely the same syntax in some sections.

You might use the facts here to craft a new passage in original language. Something like this would work:

In 1999, more than 4,000 people signed a petition objecting to a plan to replace the pool with a skateboard park. As a result, in March, the town held a meeting during which it was determined that the District Council would maintain the pool for a single season while the community created its own organization to maintain it. The community responded by forming the Pells Pool Community Association (PPCA) in 2000. The District Council duly yielded control of the pool to the Town Council, who have pledged to provide £10,000 per year to the PPCA.

Ordinarily, you'd need to give attribution to me if you like any of that language (per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, but I'm happy to release my attribution rights to that text, if it suits you.

You are, of course, welcome to come up with different ways to organize those facts. And you can utilize brief, limited quotations if necessary in accordance with WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples. It makes my heart sink a little, as it really does mean it may be easier in the long run to park the sources to one side and write from scratch rather than quickly sampling and re-editing. I'll try and absorb a few more of the principles however, as chunks of data and some quotes may be useful not just from the source in question, but also from the standard books we refer to, e.g. time-lines of building development or lobbying campaigns and pool statistics may be reproduced without impinging on copyright of significant creative prose. Obviously with the lidos pages in question any phrasing that appears directly copied from sources is an oversight and will be corrected when pointed out.—Speedoguy (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

See also MLauba's talk an administrator on the English Wikipedia.--Lidos (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had asked him for feedback. I'm also an administrator on the English Wikiipedia, and MLauba and I collaborate frequently on copyright issues. Yes, Speedoguy, I'm afraid that unless permission is verified, we really don't have any choice other than to write from scratch. Without verification, we have to treat it like we would any other source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources and WP:SPS

I've been pondering Hoines' blog and lidos.org.uk as sources. The guidance under which these might be challenged is WP:ELNO#11 (sites normally to be avoided, which specifically mentions blogs) or WP:SPS (self published sources). The rationale I suggest would be that the authors are recognized authorities in the subject. For this argument to hold water, the authors must have been quoted as such in third party publications (in this case, newspaper articles are the obvious third party documents, though on-line versions of campaign newsletters would be excellent sources). If this were, for example, to be added as a note or footnote on List of sources on lidos then a simple See also link to the list avoids any confusion for later Wikipedia editors who might be tempted to remove the references under the aforementioned policies.

With regard to the blog page and sub-pages of lidos.org.uk, it may also be handy to use the archive site (e.g. http://web.archive.org/web/*/static.webloggerisp.redjupiter.com/filer/londonpoolscampaig/CharltonLidohistory.htm and http://web.archive.org/web/*/lidos.org.uk) rather than referring solely to the live pages just to avoid getting deadlink problems in case the sites get re-designed at some point. If using {{cite web}} then such an archive link can be added to the archiveurl / archivedate parameters, see Template:Cite_web#Optional_parameters. Cheers —Speedoguy (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Both Oliver Merrington and Andy Hoines were mentioned in a Leading article in The Guardian, London. (Though the Grauniad misspelt Andy's surname!)--Lidos (talk) 10:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)