The result was keep all. T. Canens ( talk) 00:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Replicates near-verbatim SI 2007/1681. Wereon ( talk) 23:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
*keep - useful and cited. The content is imo not a copyright violation, the copyright notice is here
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/about/copyright-notice.htm it looks to me like they are actively encouraging reprinting and requesting hyperlinks to be created to their site which we have done in our article.
Off2riorob (
talk) 10:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
It looks pretty verbatim to me, as you say...it is already online...to me this content in an external link, through wikisource or see also or wherever but our hosting it verbatim here when it is already hosted and when there are issues with copyright is not part of the remit ot the project. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Note: I've created a prototype of an alternative layout using sortable wikitables:
User:Richardguk/List of United Kingdom electoral wards by constituency. It's a hefty 500KB page, but that includes all four parts of the UK so could be split.
The list includes
official ward codes to distinguish between areas of the same name where ward boundaries have changed.
As this is only a prototype, I've not included county or review area details. Also, the constituencies are listed in the order published and would need re-sorting so that the default ordering makes more sense without needing to click the header first.
—
Richardguk (
talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The second factor is whether this is an indiscriminate collection of information. My position is that it isn't. The matter is clearly explained in the first pillar:- Wikipedia is not just an encyclopaedia. It's also a gazetteer, and gazetteers need content that organises material for navigation. So for example, paper gazetteer would have a contents and an index page. Wikipedia lacks those but we have categories, lists and navigational templates that ought to serve their function instead. The rule that governs these is WP:CLN. And over and above the considerations of WP:CLN, there's a secondary factor: this material also supports and clarifies the UK's political structure. In short, I can see a variety of reasons why this material is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but a highly focused and relevant one and I'd expect to find decent coverage of this on Wikipedia. Richardguk's version looks suitable for the moment, though in a perfect world we'd have a clickable interactive map.— S Marshall T/ C 23:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep all. T. Canens ( talk) 00:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Replicates near-verbatim SI 2007/1681. Wereon ( talk) 23:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC) reply
*keep - useful and cited. The content is imo not a copyright violation, the copyright notice is here
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/about/copyright-notice.htm it looks to me like they are actively encouraging reprinting and requesting hyperlinks to be created to their site which we have done in our article.
Off2riorob (
talk) 10:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
It looks pretty verbatim to me, as you say...it is already online...to me this content in an external link, through wikisource or see also or wherever but our hosting it verbatim here when it is already hosted and when there are issues with copyright is not part of the remit ot the project. Off2riorob ( talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Note: I've created a prototype of an alternative layout using sortable wikitables:
User:Richardguk/List of United Kingdom electoral wards by constituency. It's a hefty 500KB page, but that includes all four parts of the UK so could be split.
The list includes
official ward codes to distinguish between areas of the same name where ward boundaries have changed.
As this is only a prototype, I've not included county or review area details. Also, the constituencies are listed in the order published and would need re-sorting so that the default ordering makes more sense without needing to click the header first.
—
Richardguk (
talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
The second factor is whether this is an indiscriminate collection of information. My position is that it isn't. The matter is clearly explained in the first pillar:- Wikipedia is not just an encyclopaedia. It's also a gazetteer, and gazetteers need content that organises material for navigation. So for example, paper gazetteer would have a contents and an index page. Wikipedia lacks those but we have categories, lists and navigational templates that ought to serve their function instead. The rule that governs these is WP:CLN. And over and above the considerations of WP:CLN, there's a secondary factor: this material also supports and clarifies the UK's political structure. In short, I can see a variety of reasons why this material is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but a highly focused and relevant one and I'd expect to find decent coverage of this on Wikipedia. Richardguk's version looks suitable for the moment, though in a perfect world we'd have a clickable interactive map.— S Marshall T/ C 23:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply