Talk:École secondaire catholique Garneau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ottawa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottawa articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Education in Canada
This article is part of the Education in Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).


Articles for deletion

An article related to this one was nominated for deletion on 15 January 2006. The result of the discussion was MERGE to this page. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.


Maybe we can make a page so former and present students can associate themself to the page... kinda like the babel language. When a user speaks english and puts that babel thingy on his user page he is categorized. This in turn might creat a strong patriotism. May also begin a good discusion group where people can put their silly ideas. I'm not sure how to do a category though? I'll try. --CyclePat 16:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] I'm going to make this a full featured article by december 31st

As I said. My goal is to make this a full featured article by december 31st 2005. --CyclePat 16:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] School District of Garneau

Do you know what school district this school is part of? Is it part of a Francophone Catholic school district, or is it a French immersion program in an English Catholic district (or maybe something else)? Also, note I added Category:French language schools in Ontario which matches Category:French language schools in Alberta. --Rob 00:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Added: Normally I would find/update this information myself, but alas, I can't read French. --Rob 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Rob, This school is part of the french catholique school board called "le conseil des ecoles de langue francais de centre-est" [1]. However according to the government it's "Conseil des écoles catholiques du Centre-Est de l'Ontario." (I think it's Conseil des écoles catholique de la langue francais de l'Ontario) (but that's when I was going there several years ago) something like that... links are:

Oh! don't be affraid. Try it. If I see anything wrong I'll just correct it. (Consider it as a free french tutoring lecon)--Pat 01:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I actually already tried to gather info on another one Ecole Rose in Calgary, but I just couldn't decipher anything (but who knows, I might give it another shot). But seriously, I think this article is a great addition, and I hope you also consider doing an article on the school district as well. As I understand what you said its a "Francophone Separate Catholic" district. I don't know of any article on such a district in Wikipedia, despite their presence throughout Ontario and Alberta (at least). --Rob 03:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goals

I will also make a french version at the same time at Fr:Garneau, which will be redirected to the full school name. --Pat 02:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Garneau (in both languages) should be a disambig page, not a redirect. The disambig page could link to École Secondaire Catholique Garneau, Marc Garneau, Louis Garneau, Francois Xavier Garneau, and maybe more. This approach should probably be done in both "en" and "fr" wikis. --Rob 16:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I will scan some of my "Annuaires" (photo school albums). And I will add a picture I took from one year when I flew over the school. (this is date a while ago, before the expension... however it could still be good in the history section) --Pat 05:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Le dossier temporaire... the temp directory to work in is...

École Secondaire Catholique Garneau/Urls and other facts --Pat 02:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the category of wikipedian alums

I removed Category:Wikipedians from Garneau from École Secondaire Catholique Garneau. Unfortunately, I would suggest such a category or link to it, should only be on a user page, at most. Generally, information about us (e.g. wikipedians) should never appear in any article.

It's actually an unnecessary category as anybody can see who's interested in the school by the edit history or by the talk page of the school article. Which Wikipedians went to the school is not important, but what's important is which wikipedians have an interested in editing the school article. Since, we only use verifiable information, anybody (or at least any Francophone) is equally able to edit the article.

Generally, we would only track alumni of a school for notable/famous/well-known people, not regular folks like us. The link to the category I already put above (on this talk page), should suffice. Also, I can't predict of other Wikipedians will accept the idea of the category in general; I don't object to it, but I can't speak for others. --Rob 02:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

just for future reference: Yes! I figured that would come up eventually. It's like being part of a smaller, Geographical district zone, but really you're part of an organization. I debated that one in my mind for several minutes. I browsed categories on within wiki and I didn't see anything for schools. I did see something for organisations but it wasn't appropriate. I figured, if you can say, I'm going to Place d'Orleans and it signifies a geographical location, then why can't I say I'm going to Garneau. With the same inference, if I'm going to somewhere that has now been named by the organisation name, well that would be logical to say that is the geographical location. It's all on naming and perspective! --Pat 02:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, an even better precident than geography would be Wikipedia:Wikipedians by alma mater or Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Canada; which currently goes only to universities (not schools). I have no personal objection to the existence of the category (some may though, I can't say). The only serious issue, is that it can't be mentioned on the article. As long as our readers don't see it, Wikipedians are welcome to categorize themselves however they see fit. --Rob 02:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I put in an infobox, and tried to make it look a little like some other school articles (like Beaumont Composite High School which is half French, half English). I copy/pasted the exact spelling/case of the school and district name from the respective web site also. Also I use the term "Francophone Separate Catholic" which I beleive is accurate, but might not be the terminology normally used in Ontario. Feel free to change what I've done. --Rob 05:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks nice. Good job. --Pat 05:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] addition of photo

maybe copyright? needs formating! --CylePat 20:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I would suggest there is a copyright issue. The images are copyrighted, that's certain. The Google satellite/map is for non-commercial use, which means we can't use it (by policy). The (ground level) school image is scanned, and deemed copyright, with no apparent permission. At best we could argue "fair use". Now in theory that's possible, if we're discussing the actual photo, but really we're not. Also, its policy to not use copyrighted images, if its possible to get a PD/GFDL source. I suggest, that somebody in the area could get a photo if they wished. Unfortunately, we may just have to wait for somebody to do that. I removed the photos, but I'm quite open to some second and third opinions on this issue. It's probably better to remove these images now, instead of having them suddenly deleted later by an admin (as has happened in many other articles).
Asking to the copyright holder to donate the image to public domain, or to license by GFDL, doesn't seem to be an option in this case. --Rob 21:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


for the Google satelite picture it is stated:
  • "Can I post images to the web?
We're flattered to hear that you're further incorporating Google Earth into your online world. You can personally use an image from the application (for example on your website, on a blog or in a word document) as long as you preserve the copyrights and attributions including the Google logo attribution. However, you cannot sell these to others, provide them as part of a service, or use them in a commercial product such as a book or TV show without first getting a rights clearance from Google.
If you require these commercial rights, please visit the 'contact us' link and submit your request through the 'Other problem' link. In your email, please provide details about why this information is needed and how it will be used.
Is wikipedia a service? or an encyclopedia? I think it would be fair use. --CylePat 21:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
We're a service and an encylopedia (hence a publisher). Images in Wikipedia are redistributed commercially and non-commercially, so non-commercial permission is not allowed (outside "fair use"). Fair use is something you can argue, and justify on the satellite image description if you wish. The other photo, with no known photographer may be a lost cause, as a known source is essential, even for fair use (it's subject to speedy deletion right now). I won't revert re-addition of the satellite photo, unless I find a third opinion that supports my view. However, my personal preference would be to hope for a digital camera user to take a pic and donate it. --Rob 21:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a multi-lingual Web-based free-content encyclopedia. Arguably, I believe this is more of an educational tool and less of a "service" or "commercial enterprise" such as other larger encyclopedia's.
If only I could find that darn picture I took when I went flying over the school with my physics teacher, "Big Bird"... (again: I think the satellite picture is fair use). You also get into the question of taking a picture of a building. This building belongs to someone. We should ask that person to. No... By obtaining a picture that was published by the school, we are essentially getting a picture that was permited. Analogy: Although most people aren't going to go ask Public Works Government Canada Services (PWGCS) if they may take a picture of Canada's parliament, they are generally permited (for fair use). If they decide to publish it for money... well then that may be illegal. (I've seen an instance of someone taking a picture of DND and the MP asked the photograph to delete his picture.) Secondly, that makes me wonder... What is the source for that picture of Canada's parliament? I do see the possible conflict, I myself would probably be wondering the same thing. That's why I was so bold about it! Actually, now that I think about it... the photographer was a student. He took the picture while working for the school (during a class). His submission to the year book means the picture belongs to the school, no?. (everyone paid for these year books!) Well, anyway, the publisher is Garneau. I've looked through the entire year book and found no copyright or anything. (Some news papers even use old year book pictures to show the picture of an individual) So, maybe it's fair use according to Fair use#Common misunderstandings which states: "one can plagiarize a work that is not protected by copyright." Also, these photo's are pertinent to the main topic. We are after all talking about the High School.
For the satelite picture according to WP:FU#Counterexamples
  • "A detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, (in this case a satelite picture) used in an article about the region depicted. The only context in which this might be fair use is if the map itself was a topic of a passage in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory might be fair use."
Because of WP:FU#Policy, I believe "the material contributes significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text)..." More preciselly, the satelite picture opens grounds for discusion as to where the "new" addition for grade 7 and 8 was added. Also, if it is eventually compared to my arial photograph, which I haven't found yet but it's somewhere in my messy room, it will make an excellent contrast of Garneau's building evolution. --CylePat 02:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Conclusion: as it was, you're right, the pictures didn't have their place. But rest assured it will very soon. (and perhaps their might even be some totally free one by that time.) --CylePat 02:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I put the satelite picture back. You can remove if you still feal something is wrong. --CylePat 08:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I put the year book photo back. It doesn't seem to have a copyright. --CylePat 16:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

    • hey. I come from Garneau, (10th grade), and I have been part of the committé du site web, and i can tell you that anything on the site is ok to use, except for pictures with students in them in frontground. If you want permission, I'd play it safe, and email me at shock_x_trooper@hotmail.com . Ill ask the teacher in charge --paat 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School specialty

Hey, im a present student à Garneau, and - i dont know since when,- but ill be adding a section for its specialization, or how ever its called: Computers and etc. Ill do some research and I'll add what I've found, french and english.

Tell me your feed back


Nice addition. It is certainly a motivator seeing as a failed my objective to make this a featured article by the new year. Bah! j'étais ambitieux. C'est bon de voir quelqu'un qui travail sur cet article. D'un premier coup d'oeuil, beau travail. --CyclePat [[Image:Ladies safety bicycles1889.gif|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 01:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Can anyone get a picture of the solar system in the science club room?

Hello, I was wondering... Can anyone get a picture of the solar system in the science club room? I helped out with that (my names not on the plaque though because I was in the band 1/2 the other time.) --CyclePat [[Image:Ladies safety bicycles1889.gif|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 01:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait a few weeks, I have science next semester. Maybe I have that class. I had my santé/gym test in there. Nice Solar System! Maybe you know him, but M. Lemay's class, we installed on his ceiling all the constillations. Its pretty nice, but that was last year. I'll see what I can do. You should come visit us sometime! lol paat

[edit] RE: French version?

I think we should really work on a french version for ESC Garneau, since its a french school. It would really be sumthing positive for any student to look up at later. Are you still working on it pat? If not we could work on it together, and build on eachother. It would be cool.

Also, I've added 3 new topics to wikipedia. Some you might know, some others Im not sure: MIFO, L.A.I.T.U.E. and la Ligue d'improvisation du Mifo. Unfortunately, they're not in english. I guess you gotta serach for them in french lol i dont know to make them redirect to the french topic. But its only a start, and alot can be added to what I've done

paat

Hi. There's no need to do a search. Just add a ":fr:" in the link text, to poinr to the french version: fr:MIFO, fr:L.A.I.T.U.E. and la fr:Ligue d'improvisation du Mifo --Rob 05:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yay! it works lol thanks alot Thivierr paat
You'll notice on the left side of the garneau page that their is a version francais for the page.
Wikipédia ne possède pas encore d'article avec ce nom. paat 18:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Oui! Je voulais le commencer mais le syntax de formatage est différent sur wikipedia français. On pourais commencer une première ébauche? --CyclePat 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Oui. Sure. Je vais traduire la page englaise pour le français, et on peut continuer de là, daccord. La page sera fr:École Secondaire Catholique Garneau, comme ça ca suit le meme titre que l'anglais, et ça n'interfert pas avec des pages futurs comme fr:Marc Garneau ou fr:Louis Garneau paat 01:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Redirect to école secondaire catholique Garneau

I did a redirect to École Secondaire Catholique Garneau from école Garneau. I checked, and there wasnt any other school on wikipedia with the name of Garneau. So i thought that not every one will put école secondaire catholique garneau, and even that citation wouldnt work, since i didnt put in the Capitol letters. Maybe we should add a redirect for école secondaire catholique garneau paat 20:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you need a redirect for lower-case, as I *think* a search will still work (test it, and if I'm wrong, then go ahead). Also, of more value would be a redirect for an unaccented letter "e". --Rob 23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
K. thanks Rob. I just finished the Page for fr:École Secondaire Catholique Garneau in french, and I'll get to the redirect page right now. paat 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I added a redirect to fr:ecole Garneaupaat 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Garneau francaise complété

Garneau in french is up and running! CyclePat, u might need a 2nd account for the french wikipedia paat 03:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I have one! I'll see. Thanks! --CyclePat 04:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nouvelles informations à inclures dans l'histoire!

L'école était en ville et supposément était ce qu'on appel aujourd'hui l'Université d'Ottawa. http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/crccf/passeport/IV/IVB1b/IVB1b11-1-1.html --CyclePat 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Francois Xavier Garneau: http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/crccf/exposition/histoire/pages/garneau03_gif.htm --CyclePat 21:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted image

This page contains a copyrighted image from Google Maps (Image:GoogleMap of Garneau.JPG) which has been put up for deletion (screenshots of Google Maps/Google Earth aren't fair use). A new image will be needed. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French Version need expansion

Hey guys (mostly CyclePat though lol), im back, after months of beeing gone... too much homework... lol I'd put that in the page but i dont have any quotations to prove it lol :p. But If anyone wants to help me expand the french version, tell me sumhow, and I'll be able to help as much as I can. I can also take a new (color) picture of Garneau maybe this summer, since I still go to Garneau. tell me wat u guys think paat 23:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New GuG Title page

Yay!!! I'm soo happy. Next week, me and the rest of the editing team for the GuG review will meet up to finalize the new review! I've got a few reviews in there ( i think its supposed to be a 14-page review), and I did the cover page! When I get a copy of the new cover page, I must add it into this page. But what will the copyright be? I'm really the author, but its for the whole user group, so i dont think i get individual copyrights.... I know the teacher wouldn't hate that the cover page is on wikipedia, but i guess i should still put the right copyright... what do you think? paat 23:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google Maps and Mapquest mistakes

Why is this important or significant? There are many addresses that are rendered imprecisely by mapping software. Is this a particularly significant example of such a mistake? I can't see why it would be. Conversely - is the mistake of more than trivial significance to École Secondaire Catholique Garneau or the larger community? I can see where it would be mildly annoying that you can't get perfect driving directions from Google Maps, but otherwise I just don't see why this is a useful part of the article. I suggest removing it. FreplySpang (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an example of a mistake that is rendered by google maps. It pinpoints virtually the same location for two different addresses. Why does it pinpoint the same buidling? If it isn't a mistake then how can you pinpoint that last building? (which is actually the school!) By cliking the links in the article you will see this. If google maps is know for having such mistakes, why shouldn't it be specified in this article? The significance of noticing one mistake in google puts into question the exactitude of some other primary facts that are being stated in the article. For example, the Latitude and Longitude is taken from google earth image. Google maps is also used by how many people? It is essentially an online Atlas that depicts the location of the school being at the same location as another building. These are all primary facts.
Asides from being midly annoying for driving this put into dispute the territory. This is highly important. Taking into consideration that most wars are fought over territory I would think the relevance of an unlawfull depictation of the territory is significant. Significant
  1. because it states the current dilema of trusting the source.
  2. it puts into question the actually location of the school for people that are not familiar with the location.
  3. It give a good example of a mistake within an atlas that is used and known internationally.
Not only that but the critical commentary is being used to describe the mistake in the photo. The two go hand in hand together. Perhaps in 10 years or 2 years from now the Google system will properly pinpoint the school. The picture and the facts are a historical depictation of how the school was portraid NOW!
As for a local map I will upload an image of the city map. It will only substantiate the current error that exists. --CyclePat 19:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
As the editor who made this edit, I have already expressed that I don't think that this section belongs here. Trying to make a point about online mapping software in an article about a secondary school is, I suggest, not what our readers are looking for. Further, coming up with one's own examples of mapping software mistakes to make that point runs afoul of Wikipedia:No original research, no matter how abundantly obvious that mistake is, -- we're not investigative reporters; we are encyclopedia writers. Please be cautious about uploading any more unfree content, Cyclepat, especially since it seems that you are doing so in order to conduct your own research into a matter that you have a strong opinion on. Wikipedia really isn't the place for that. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 20:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, CyclePat, but your reasoning here is not convincing. A mistake in Google Maps does not put the legal status of a territory into dispute. Google Maps is descriptive, not prescriptive. Criticism of Google Maps belongs in the article about Google Maps, not here. FreplySpang (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fair use and "disputed territory"

I'd like to suggest that you may be misreading Wikipedia:Fair use. You wrote that the Google Maps images were okay because this secondary school is "disputed territory". If we have written Wikipedia:Fair use in such a way as to cause confusion about this, we need to tighten up the writing in that example, not come up with our own definitions of disputed territory to allow for novel arguments to be made about mapping software in an article about a secondary school. Jkelly 20:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You are being a WP:DICK. You should wait before imposing your beliefs and making changes to the article. Futher more I have already elaborate on WP:ANI that this is all primary facts. In your wikipedia anxiety to fend and delete all copyright material or thing you believe to be of "insignificance" you have even removed the adress of the school. You have even gone to remove a picture that was from an OPEN SOURCE book! GFDL... THe school year book. Trully you are not thinking straight and need a Wiki Break. Before things escalate any further, I would recommend we agree on something. I agree that you disagree with me! Right? That you believe that these images should not be included because they rely on the discussion of the territory dispute discussion. You believe this is original research. Hence, that text, along with the photo should be removed.

I believe that the primary facts are clearly obvious... however you keep removing it from the article. Hence I will state the main issues here:

Garneau is located at 6588 carrier street, Orléans, Ontario.[5] However, when trying to locate Garneau via Google Maps or Google Earth there are some discrepancies. This Google map which allegedly localizes Garneau High school actually pinpoints just in front of the MIFO. The Google map for MIFO, 6600 rue Carrière, is pinpointed at approximatelly the same location.

As I elaborated in the WP:ANI this is not WP:NOR because it has primary facts. WP:NOR states that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." It is my understand that you are trying to say that Google " doensn't have a good reputation for scholarly publications." when in fact it is internationally renown! As someone indicated, google is known for not being accurate. That section further more indicate how we can solve this problem:

In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events), but these are exceptions.
Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source correctly.
In some cases, there may be controversy or debate over what constitutes a legitimate or reputable authority or source. Where no agreement can be reached about this, the article should provide an account of the controversy and of the different authorities or sources. Such an account also helps ensure the article’s neutral point of view.

I hence while be adding the NPOV dispute at the top of the article. An administrator like you should have been tested for such procedures no? --CyclePat 21:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Disputed territory is a term with a very specific meaning: a disagreement over the ownership of land between two nations. A mapping error in certain online tools is not "disputed territory": it's a bug, and not a particularly rare one either. Google Maps points to the wrong place when I try to find my house, for example; however, that certainly isn't a fact that belongs in Wikipedia. Neither is this one.
Also, how do you conclude that the yearbook is licensed under GFDL? That would be a highly unusual yearbook - content is not licensed under GFDL unless the creators/owners of the content specifically release it under that license. I'd have to see that to believe it. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Well your house probably wouldn't make it into wikipedia as an article let alone trying to describe the location (unless you live in the white house or something!). So I'm not sure if that is the best example. But I understand the point. You're trying to say that mistakes are abundant within google maps and are irrelevant to this article. I would like to argue to the contrary because, if we take this to a more general scope, what you are saying is that wikipedia can pick and chose it's information. Now I remember seing a rule that say that even if it's a majority view point then it should be kept. If it is a minor view point then it should be lightly discussed. If it is very limited it can be removed. Am I correct? It all seems to come down to what wikipedia people think it is and not what the facts are!
Are we critizing this mistake or all google map mistakes? Why is it that an error from a map should not be placed into an article? We are not necessarilly here to argue the verifiability, we're here to argue the importance of the information. If we where for example to consider this to be small view point, then why is it google is internationally renown and that you are familiar with these "errors"? The fact is an error exist in locating this school... will this be included. Yes or No? And why not? Remove that fact and you must inherently remove the picture. Obviously it's been proven to me that JKelly is biased because he has, whether purposelly or inadvertantly, removed information that is relevant to the article, such as the adress of the school. This was done so he could in turn removed the picture. Another reason your biased is because Wikipedia strongly recommend we remain GFDL and try to avoid FAIR USE pictures. However wikipedia also says it is possible to use Fair Use images.
Like I said this is no longer an issue of fair use this is an issue of personal vandedetta and trying to avoid using copyrighted images. The information itself may have a slight POV but there is no reason why the links, and the information should be removed. The image however may be another question. What is the definition of disputed territory? Your reference to the disputed territory article seems convincing that a disputed territory is more than just a mistake in google, and I may have to conceide on that. However if you take the direct definition of Disputed Territory or another definition it may not be the same.
As for the year book. The only reason I assumed it is GFDL is because it has no copyright anywhere in the book. Since it was made during the course of a government funded project it is hence the property of school and the government. I would have imagined that though students devoted their time and effort to creat the book that it is in fact the property of school and the goverment. Generally government property stipulates clearly their copyright laws. Since there are none, I CyclePat, assume this is GFDL. --CyclePat 22:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
what you are saying is that wikipedia can pick and chose it's information. Yes. We try to impose some organization on the information we present. We do not include every detail about significant places. For instance - MIT is significant, the fact that the stairs of its main entrance are worn out is not significant. Similarly - École Secondaire Catholique Garneau is significant (apparently), the fact that Google Maps doesn't locate it properly is not.
Also, if a document does not include copyright information, we assume that it is copyrighted. Our Copyright FAQ makes this clear. This is not just our policy - it's the requirement of the Berne Convention. FreplySpang (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Well again there is a difference here. I'm not quite talking about the front steps of Garneau. (Though if I was a curator that may be of interest!) I'm talking about the relevant location. The landmark that is portraid for Garneau in Google Maps is not the right one. It is the MIFO. The MIFO is an important culutural association that represents the french in Ontario. Precendents exists that sugests the importance and notability of a landmarks and that such information should not be deleted.[6]. Also WP:WEB states that if "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators" it is notable. WP:N even goes to say that there are no official rules for notability. After checkin WP:NPOV#Undue weight I found the section I was refering to. We haven't really gone into the detail of POV of this but I would tend to believe that is somewhere in between Majority POV, and extremely small point. I would say it is a prominent minor view. But really POV isn't the issue because, this is something that you guys can all believe! It is obvious error that can be seen by any adult. You click one map it gives one location.. You click another map it gives the same location. Even with the best of sources we are now trying to take this information out. Like I said, this information is important, it is an internationally renown website, and well... simply put, though the image may no longer meet the requirements inclusion, because of your definition of disputed territory the information, about the google map should be able to be incorperated into the article. (That said... a fair use image would be ideal and believe is appropriate.) If I was writting a book, I think placing 2 images of google maps would be okay in this case. --72.57.8.158 02:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
If you were writing a book, and you placed two images from Google Maps in it, Google and their content provider, Terraserver.com, would most likely sue you for illegal redistribution of their content. Same goes for Wikipedia. We have no problem with the location of the school being listed; our issue is that you're placing undue weight on a bug in the Google Maps database that gives its location incorrectly, and that you're placing images in the article which we don't really have the right to use this way. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
CyclePat, you quote a lot of policy that isn't quite applicable here. When WP:WEB says that "content is notable," it means that we should have an article about Google Maps - not that we should talk about Google Maps in every article that mentions a place you can find in Google Maps. Google itself is notable, but we don't talk about it in every article. ESCG is notable. MIFO is notable. This Google Maps bug is not important. Facts can be true and verifiable without being significant. FreplySpang (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello FreplySpang, I think in short your refering to is this essay Wikipedia:I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground. I will give my rebutal tomorow. --72.57.8.158 03:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Quite the opposite. I certainly would know Google Maps from a hole in the ground. I have not said anything dismissive about ESCG or MIFO. On the other hand, I don't especially care about ESCG or MIFO. You asked for input on WP:AN/I, and you've certainly had mine. As long as the Google Maps images are removed, I'll let someone else take over the argument for the quality of this particular article. FreplySpang (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you FreplySpang, your opinion is greatly appreciated. I understood your point of view. I don't accept it. But I understand it. The idea of "a whole in the ground was" simply my attempt to see if there is another rule that supports the removal of the content that I may accept. Now everyone keeps saying we don't really have the righ to use the images in the article this way? JzG has explain that it should be used in the google maps article and not this article. But we are unvoidably turning around the idea of forking information from one article to another. What dictates that this fact, ESC Garneau pinpoints the MIFO, has more importance to be included into the article of Google Maps vs ESCG?
As for me writting a book and placing two google maps, it depends on the context. Where the maps simply placed in there to depict the area or was there trully a CRITICAL commentary on the mapping system itself. (see note below) Determining this appears to be a key element in deciding if this is fair use. The scope of wikipedia is prety much illimiteless. So there is no real reason to limit it because of size.
This is an area, the fact of including fair use pictures for critical commentary, that I feal we should explore. No mater the case, your opinion is greatly appreciated. I did feal something was clashing in the article with the mapping and charting section. Perhaps an undue weight in comparison to the entire article? The only thing is I don't see it that clear and I see more elements to argue the inclusion verse the exclusion. (I personnally feal I have given stronger reasons for inclusion) It's one of those gray areas and when you have other policies that sugest it is possible to do so, you do it! Of course, with my argumentative attitude, I'm going to jump at the first occasion. A precendent would be the best thing to have here! --CyclePat 13:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry! About the book thing, the rules of use for google maps are elaborate here. I would need special permision. No matter the case. Is this fair use? --CyclePat 14:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)