Template:Did you know nominations/European Underwater and Baromedical Society
The following is an archived discussion of European Underwater and Baromedical Society's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
European Underwater and Baromedical Society
[edit]- ... that the European Underwater and Baromedical Society was formed in 1971 to further education and research in diving and hyperbaric medicine?
Created by Gene Hobbs (talk). Self nominated at 04:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC).
- That quote in the box is very long, could be unfair usage (aka copyright trouble). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look! I think it is important enough to the org history to keep as much as we can so I asked User:RexxS to take a look and he was kind enough to make an edit. Is this better? --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe; it's still about 200 words, and my (very basic) understanding is that fair usage is generally up to about 50 words at a time. The usual Wiki-approach is to study a passage and then to summarize it in your own words, and that would be the best thing here. If you still need to quote one or two short bits then that's fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- The relevant guidance is at Wikipedia:Quotations, particularly the section Copyrighted material and fair use. It is too simplistic to give an upper limit to the number of words as fair use depends on many factors, although I'm sympathetic to the goal of limiting fair use as much as possible - particularly in a short article. In this case, providing the Honorary Secretary's own words as he describes his personal views gives an authentic flavour of those issues that could not be conveyed by summarisation. I'll have a go at editing down the quote further, but I doubt that I can get it down beyond about 100 words. See what you think. --RexxS (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Rexx here, while sensitive to the concern I fear it's being too rule bound, akin to cut off our noses. I do not feel this is "too long" and have seen even longer quotes. There's a similar ARBCOM case on usage of quotations: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes#Use_of_quotes_in_footnotes. PumpkinSky talk 02:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh good, I am really pleased to be wrong on this occasion! How nice to hear commonsense prevailing re copyright. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Rexx here, while sensitive to the concern I fear it's being too rule bound, akin to cut off our noses. I do not feel this is "too long" and have seen even longer quotes. There's a similar ARBCOM case on usage of quotations: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes#Use_of_quotes_in_footnotes. PumpkinSky talk 02:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- The relevant guidance is at Wikipedia:Quotations, particularly the section Copyrighted material and fair use. It is too simplistic to give an upper limit to the number of words as fair use depends on many factors, although I'm sympathetic to the goal of limiting fair use as much as possible - particularly in a short article. In this case, providing the Honorary Secretary's own words as he describes his personal views gives an authentic flavour of those issues that could not be conveyed by summarisation. I'll have a go at editing down the quote further, but I doubt that I can get it down beyond about 100 words. See what you think. --RexxS (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
interesting article on good sources, offline sources accepted AGF. I would prefer to have the purpose sooner in the article, perhaps in the lead, at least before the complicated history. The redirect to the publication might also appear in the lead. The hook is very general and doesn't relate to the European aspect, ideas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
That quote does not strike me as too long, but I've shortened it by a few characters, also to remove a grammatical error (please see my edit and its summary). I have made a tweak to the lead on Gerda's suggestion. I have no inspiration for a hook; the current one is fine, IMO, though not terrifically exciting. But this has been here long enough; let's move it along. Gerda, thanks for your review, and thanks to others for their comments. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
