Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Travel Guide: Board statement

2012-09-17 Thread Stefan Fussan 
We are about to migrate the WT data on WV as a first step ( 
http://www.wikivoyage.org/general/Migration_FAQ ). I am in touch with 
Erik as well.
Till now i have got no time table and any further information from the 
WMF.  But I am sure, during the next two weeks we will know more details 
about the procedure.


Stefan aka Fussi

Am 17.09.2012 19:31, schrieb Samuel Klein:

The Wikivoyage migration plans should be able to proceed.  I haven't seen a
specific plan for how that will work; it is still being discussed on Meta
and on Wikivoyage.

Sam.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:


On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:21:55PM +0200, Alice Wiegand wrote:

Hi all,

on behalf of the Board of Trustees I'm glad to announce the following
statement about the travel guide RfC
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide :

What are the next steps? Will the foundation first wait for all
lawsuits to resolve, or will they start with working on providing the
servers? What's the current time-frame?

sincerely,
 Kim Bruning

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l





___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the hidden toolbox

2012-09-17 Thread David Gerard 
On 17 September 2012 18:03, Samuel Klein  wrote:

> Naturally every link wants to escape from the toolbox, if it's collapsed
> :-)
> They were designed to be used, after all.
> I also haven't seen any solid argument for collapsing any navboxes by
> default (except perhaps those in the topnav which pop up on mouseover).


It was one of the usability ideas from the Vector team. Apparently
features confuse users.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Travel Guide: Board statement

2012-09-17 Thread Samuel Klein 
The Wikivoyage migration plans should be able to proceed.  I haven't seen a
specific plan for how that will work; it is still being discussed on Meta
and on Wikivoyage.

Sam.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Kim Bruning  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 03:21:55PM +0200, Alice Wiegand wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > on behalf of the Board of Trustees I'm glad to announce the following
> > statement about the travel guide RfC
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide :
>
>
> What are the next steps? Will the foundation first wait for all
> lawsuits to resolve, or will they start with working on providing the
> servers? What's the current time-frame?
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] the hidden toolbox

2012-09-17 Thread Samuel Klein 
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:

> The result so far seems to be only that everyone wants to escape from the
> toolbox, see e.g.  wiki/Collection_Extension_2#**Wireframe_Layout_for_placing_**
> the_print_and_Collection_**extension_buttons>
> (which has also a wider rationale); monobook users stay where they are.
>

Naturally every link wants to escape from the toolbox, if it's collapsed
:-)
They were designed to be used, after all.

I also haven't seen any solid argument for collapsing any navboxes by
default (except perhaps those in the topnav which pop up on mouseover).

It removes a small % of links from the overall nav - roughly 7 out of 50 -
including some popular ones like upload-file.  It would be good to see
regular spot-checks of what sort of use the toolbox links get when
default-expanded vs. default-closed.  (and whether other sidebar links are
less used/useful)

SJ


> On the bright side, this is something the e3 team could shed some light on
> at last?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : Copyright of deep space objects (DSOs) outside of the solar system

2012-09-17 Thread John Vandenberg 
Thanks. I didnt search. I looked in the last 250 revisions of the page. I
didnt look back far enough.

John Vandenberg.
sent from Galaxy Note
On Sep 17, 2012 8:42 PM, "Strainu"  wrote:

> Have you searched for it?
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/09#Potential_deletion_of_all_deep_space_objects
>
> 2012/9/17 John Vandenberg :
> > Where is the onwiki discussion about this? I could find '[1]'
> >
> > Or a wikipedia page that describes the copyright status of imagery of
> DSOs?
> >
> > John Vandenberg.
> > sent from Galaxy Note
> > On Sep 15, 2012 1:25 PM, "とある白い猫"  wrote:
> >
> >>   Hi,
> >>
> >>   I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue.
> I am
> >> not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws
> >> governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep space
> >> objects (DSO). I do not expect a result next week, I merely want the
> issue
> >> to enter into an agenda of some sort. If the Foundation is going to take
> >> the lead, this probably would only be possible through a board
> decision. In
> >> such a case I want to work with people to come up with such a draft
> >> proposal to the board.
> >>
> >>   I realize this is an unusual request but there seems to be a lack of
> >> clarity on this issue[1]. Argument is that copyright can be an issue
> since
> >> not every organization observing or assisting NASA's observations are
> >> PD-USgov compatible. We may be forced to permanently delete all deep
> space
> >> objects as a result.
> >>
> >>   I'd like to provide a short technical explanation why copyright of
> deep
> >> space objects or DSOs (objects outside of the solar system) are
> >> meaningless. For ordinary photographs copyright is determined by factors
> >> such as lighting, perspective, exposure and other such settings that
> >> creates a different image of the same object. You can distinguish the
> >> difference between a daylight photo and an evening photo.
> >>
> >>   With deep space objects however, even the stellar parallax[2] has a
> very
> >> small value. The closest object outside of the solar system is 4.24
> light
> >> years (268,136 AU's) away. The semi-major axis of earth is about 1AUs.
> The
> >> difference in perspective is like looking at a 2cm (width of a nickel)
> wide
> >> object 5.3km (3.29 miles) away and the perspective difference is
> switching
> >> left eye to the right eye. We lack scientific instruments to even
> detect a
> >> stellar parallax for objects much further. In other words our
> perspective
> >> of the nearest star and beyond is more or less constant and the objects
> >> themselves look the same for hundreds of years.
> >>
> >>   So any photo of a deep space object I or someone else takes from the
> >> solar system will look identical regardless of when and where on earth I
> >> take it within multiple lifetimes. I think this can bring legal
> precedent
> >> for us to either disregard any copyright claim or at least pursue
> lawmakers
> >> in congress to amend the copyright law to make an exception in the law.
> >> People who worked with congress such as Neil Degrasse Tyson could be
> >> consulted to this end. Also international treaties[3] can be consulted
> to
> >> this end as copyrighting photos of deep space objects could be
> interpreted
> >> as an unfair exploitation of resources.
> >>
> >>   I realize this reads like something out of Star Trek but this is
> growing
> >> to be quite a problem as we see more and more weird copyright claims
> even
> >> when dealing with NASA which traditionally had a PD-USgov mentality.
> NASA
> >> regularly contracts its more recent projects and to be fair we do not
> know
> >> how NASA contracts these projects which could potentially lead
> >> to legitimate copyright claims in the future.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]:
> >>
> >>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Potential_deletion_of_all_deep_space_objects
> >>
> >> [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax
> >>
> >> [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law#International_treaties
> >>
> >>   -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >>
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : Copyright of deep space objects (DSOs) outside of the solar system

2012-09-17 Thread Strainu 
Have you searched for it?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/09#Potential_deletion_of_all_deep_space_objects

2012/9/17 John Vandenberg :
> Where is the onwiki discussion about this? I could find '[1]'
>
> Or a wikipedia page that describes the copyright status of imagery of DSOs?
>
> John Vandenberg.
> sent from Galaxy Note
> On Sep 15, 2012 1:25 PM, "とある白い猫"  wrote:
>
>>   Hi,
>>
>>   I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue. I am
>> not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws
>> governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep space
>> objects (DSO). I do not expect a result next week, I merely want the issue
>> to enter into an agenda of some sort. If the Foundation is going to take
>> the lead, this probably would only be possible through a board decision. In
>> such a case I want to work with people to come up with such a draft
>> proposal to the board.
>>
>>   I realize this is an unusual request but there seems to be a lack of
>> clarity on this issue[1]. Argument is that copyright can be an issue since
>> not every organization observing or assisting NASA's observations are
>> PD-USgov compatible. We may be forced to permanently delete all deep space
>> objects as a result.
>>
>>   I'd like to provide a short technical explanation why copyright of deep
>> space objects or DSOs (objects outside of the solar system) are
>> meaningless. For ordinary photographs copyright is determined by factors
>> such as lighting, perspective, exposure and other such settings that
>> creates a different image of the same object. You can distinguish the
>> difference between a daylight photo and an evening photo.
>>
>>   With deep space objects however, even the stellar parallax[2] has a very
>> small value. The closest object outside of the solar system is 4.24 light
>> years (268,136 AU's) away. The semi-major axis of earth is about 1AUs. The
>> difference in perspective is like looking at a 2cm (width of a nickel) wide
>> object 5.3km (3.29 miles) away and the perspective difference is switching
>> left eye to the right eye. We lack scientific instruments to even detect a
>> stellar parallax for objects much further. In other words our perspective
>> of the nearest star and beyond is more or less constant and the objects
>> themselves look the same for hundreds of years.
>>
>>   So any photo of a deep space object I or someone else takes from the
>> solar system will look identical regardless of when and where on earth I
>> take it within multiple lifetimes. I think this can bring legal precedent
>> for us to either disregard any copyright claim or at least pursue lawmakers
>> in congress to amend the copyright law to make an exception in the law.
>> People who worked with congress such as Neil Degrasse Tyson could be
>> consulted to this end. Also international treaties[3] can be consulted to
>> this end as copyrighting photos of deep space objects could be interpreted
>> as an unfair exploitation of resources.
>>
>>   I realize this reads like something out of Star Trek but this is growing
>> to be quite a problem as we see more and more weird copyright claims even
>> when dealing with NASA which traditionally had a PD-USgov mentality. NASA
>> regularly contracts its more recent projects and to be fair we do not know
>> how NASA contracts these projects which could potentially lead
>> to legitimate copyright claims in the future.
>>
>>
>> [1]:
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Potential_deletion_of_all_deep_space_objects
>>
>> [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax
>>
>> [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law#International_treaties
>>
>>   -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : Copyright of deep space objects (DSOs) outside of the solar system

2012-09-17 Thread John Vandenberg 
Where is the onwiki discussion about this? I could find '[1]'

Or a wikipedia page that describes the copyright status of imagery of DSOs?

John Vandenberg.
sent from Galaxy Note
On Sep 15, 2012 1:25 PM, "とある白い猫"  wrote:

>   Hi,
>
>   I am not seeking legal advice. I am asking the pursuit of the issue. I am
> not a US citizen so I do not have a congress person to contact. The laws
> governing copyright can be amended to address the issue of deep space
> objects (DSO). I do not expect a result next week, I merely want the issue
> to enter into an agenda of some sort. If the Foundation is going to take
> the lead, this probably would only be possible through a board decision. In
> such a case I want to work with people to come up with such a draft
> proposal to the board.
>
>   I realize this is an unusual request but there seems to be a lack of
> clarity on this issue[1]. Argument is that copyright can be an issue since
> not every organization observing or assisting NASA's observations are
> PD-USgov compatible. We may be forced to permanently delete all deep space
> objects as a result.
>
>   I'd like to provide a short technical explanation why copyright of deep
> space objects or DSOs (objects outside of the solar system) are
> meaningless. For ordinary photographs copyright is determined by factors
> such as lighting, perspective, exposure and other such settings that
> creates a different image of the same object. You can distinguish the
> difference between a daylight photo and an evening photo.
>
>   With deep space objects however, even the stellar parallax[2] has a very
> small value. The closest object outside of the solar system is 4.24 light
> years (268,136 AU's) away. The semi-major axis of earth is about 1AUs. The
> difference in perspective is like looking at a 2cm (width of a nickel) wide
> object 5.3km (3.29 miles) away and the perspective difference is switching
> left eye to the right eye. We lack scientific instruments to even detect a
> stellar parallax for objects much further. In other words our perspective
> of the nearest star and beyond is more or less constant and the objects
> themselves look the same for hundreds of years.
>
>   So any photo of a deep space object I or someone else takes from the
> solar system will look identical regardless of when and where on earth I
> take it within multiple lifetimes. I think this can bring legal precedent
> for us to either disregard any copyright claim or at least pursue lawmakers
> in congress to amend the copyright law to make an exception in the law.
> People who worked with congress such as Neil Degrasse Tyson could be
> consulted to this end. Also international treaties[3] can be consulted to
> this end as copyrighting photos of deep space objects could be interpreted
> as an unfair exploitation of resources.
>
>   I realize this reads like something out of Star Trek but this is growing
> to be quite a problem as we see more and more weird copyright claims even
> when dealing with NASA which traditionally had a PD-USgov mentality. NASA
> regularly contracts its more recent projects and to be fair we do not know
> how NASA contracts these projects which could potentially lead
> to legitimate copyright claims in the future.
>
>
> [1]:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Potential_deletion_of_all_deep_space_objects
>
> [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax
>
> [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law#International_treaties
>
>   -- とある白い猫  (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] : Copyright of deep space objects (DSOs) outside of the solar system

2012-09-17 Thread geni 
On 17 September 2012 04:07, とある白い猫  wrote:
> Point is place and time does not matter as the object would look the same.


> A couple of amateur observatories would not be able to produce images that
> can rival Hubble which is in orbit.

Do you see the problem?

-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Could someone please fix this article?

2012-09-17 Thread Matthew Bowker 

Appears to have been fixed: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_films_and_television_shows_set_or_shot_in_Liverpool&diff=513028521&oldid=512355254

Yes, the English Wikipedia has it's own list.  wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org  

Matthew Bowker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matthewrbowker


On Sep 16, 2012, at 10:30 PM, JP Béland  wrote:

> Indeed, and I'm pretty sure Wikipedia-en has its own list anyway...
> 
> 2012/9/16 David Richfield 
> 
>> This shouldn't be on this mailing list; it should be somewhere like
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/British_cinema_task_force
>> 
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Phil Nash 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> - Original Message - From: "Dominik Martinez"
>>> 
>>> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
>>> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 1:16 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Could someone please fix this article?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On 9/16/2012 5:11 PM, Phil Nash wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_and_television_shows_set_in_Liverpool
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> 
 Could you please be a little more specific as to what you need fixed?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It should be obvious. But there's an entry which has broken the table
>>> format, and another which isn't even in the table. I'd do it myself, and
>> it
>>> would take me less than a minute; but ArbCom have decided that I can't
>> even
>>> do that. Counter-productive? You judge.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> David Richfield
>> [[:en:User:Slashme]]
>> +27718539985
>> 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l