Copyfree was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 04 April 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Free content. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Free content is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to
Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intellectual property, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Intellectual property on Wikipedia.Intellectual propertyWikipedia:WikiProject Intellectual propertyTemplate:WikiProject Intellectual propertyIntellectual property articles
Text and/or other creative content from
Open content was copied or moved into
Free content with
this edit. The former page's
history now serves to
provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
A successor project is one that completely takes over from the first project. More than once here, there's mention of Creative Commons "successor projects", which is impossible because Creative Commons is still operating. I'm sure those projects belong in the article, but there needs to be a better descriptive word for them.
TooManyFingers (
talk) 21:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Requested move 6 March 2022
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose per
Google Ngrams, pageviews (1,800 for free, 130 for open yesterday) and Google search (15 billion hits for free content, but 10 billion for open content). Oh, and this time the pageviews have a lower margin of error; Google shows different Knowledge Engine links for free and open content searches.
🐶 EpicPupper(he/him |
talk) 03:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per EpicPupper, also
Wikidata will show that the vast majority of other language wikis appear to use words that translate to "free" and I have not found a mention of "open" yet. Our title policies tend to lean more toward actual usage than interpretation of definitions.
ASUKITE 00:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Definition of free cultural works
The lead confidently asserts that free content are things that meet freedomdefined.org's definition of a free cultural work, with a primary source citation that just links to that definition. It may be how we define it, but is it really the one agreed-upon definition? I don't think it is.
Snowmanonahoe (
talk·contribs·typos) 14:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
For being permanently linked on the main page, this article in general is... not very good. I have no idea where to start improving it though. Frankly, I wonder whether it's even notable.
Snowmanonahoe (
talk·contribs·typos) 14:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree,
Snowmanonahoe, that the article is not very good. It is outdated in so many ways. I cleaned up some minor formatting and grammar errors today, but that isn't the real problem. So very many things have changed since 2010-2015 which is when the article had more relevance.--
FeralOink (
talk) 18:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Copyfree was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 04 April 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Free content. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Free content is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to
Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intellectual property, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Intellectual property on Wikipedia.Intellectual propertyWikipedia:WikiProject Intellectual propertyTemplate:WikiProject Intellectual propertyIntellectual property articles
Text and/or other creative content from
Open content was copied or moved into
Free content with
this edit. The former page's
history now serves to
provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
A successor project is one that completely takes over from the first project. More than once here, there's mention of Creative Commons "successor projects", which is impossible because Creative Commons is still operating. I'm sure those projects belong in the article, but there needs to be a better descriptive word for them.
TooManyFingers (
talk) 21:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Requested move 6 March 2022
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose per
Google Ngrams, pageviews (1,800 for free, 130 for open yesterday) and Google search (15 billion hits for free content, but 10 billion for open content). Oh, and this time the pageviews have a lower margin of error; Google shows different Knowledge Engine links for free and open content searches.
🐶 EpicPupper(he/him |
talk) 03:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose per EpicPupper, also
Wikidata will show that the vast majority of other language wikis appear to use words that translate to "free" and I have not found a mention of "open" yet. Our title policies tend to lean more toward actual usage than interpretation of definitions.
ASUKITE 00:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Definition of free cultural works
The lead confidently asserts that free content are things that meet freedomdefined.org's definition of a free cultural work, with a primary source citation that just links to that definition. It may be how we define it, but is it really the one agreed-upon definition? I don't think it is.
Snowmanonahoe (
talk·contribs·typos) 14:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
For being permanently linked on the main page, this article in general is... not very good. I have no idea where to start improving it though. Frankly, I wonder whether it's even notable.
Snowmanonahoe (
talk·contribs·typos) 14:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree,
Snowmanonahoe, that the article is not very good. It is outdated in so many ways. I cleaned up some minor formatting and grammar errors today, but that isn't the real problem. So very many things have changed since 2010-2015 which is when the article had more relevance.--
FeralOink (
talk) 18:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply