Talk:Tutwiler Hotel: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Talk:Tutwiler Hotel (1914) moved to Talk:Tutwiler Hotel over redirect) |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Tutwilers== | ==Tutwilers== | ||
We'll need to distinguish between the old Tutwiler Hotel and the present one with separate articles. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 14:04, 30 November 2006 (PST) | We'll need to distinguish between the old Tutwiler Hotel and the present one with separate articles. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 14:04, 30 November 2006 (PST) | ||
:Oh, good point. That makes ripping out the last portions even easier. So should the article be moved to [[Tutwiler Hotel (1914)]]? And I'll have to undo my categorization changes. (Oops.) --[[User:Lkseitz|Lkseitz]] 14:16, 30 November 2006 (PST) | |||
* I think you're already ahead of me in thinking over the best strategy. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 14:25, 30 November 2006 (PST) | |||
== Copyright? == | |||
Please pardon my suspicions, but as this entry was created by the self-confessed [[User:JFridley|director of sales for the Tutwiler]], it strikes me not as something that was written specifically for BhamWiki, but a press release or news story that was conveniently lying around. The last three paragraphs, in particular, sound like a press release about the hotel's remodeling. And after some searching I found the source for those. [http://thetutwilerhotel.com/renovations.html] | |||
So my question is, where do we go from here? I can rip out the last three paragraphs or so and rewrite those. (In fact, I was probably going to anyway.) But what do we do about the rest? Even if the first part is not infringing, a source for the quotes would be nice. --[[User:Lkseitz|Lkseitz]] 14:13, 30 November 2006 (PST) | |||
* The text should be copyedited to comply with our policy on neutrality and verifiability, and expanded. While it would be best to avoid plaigiarizing from the the Tutwiler's publicity, I don't think copyright per se will be an issue since the contributor is no doubt acting on behalf of the copyright-holder and is empowered to place the work under our CC license. Bottom line, it can be improved but there's no emergency. In my opinion it provided a good starting place for what will no doubt soon be a fine pair of articles. --[[User:Dystopos|Dystopos]] 14:24, 30 November 2006 (PST) | |||
I made some changes to the history section so it's a little less breathless. -- [[User:Alarob|Rob]] 19:02, 30 November 2006 (PST) |
Latest revision as of 10:26, 12 March 2014
Tutwilers
We'll need to distinguish between the old Tutwiler Hotel and the present one with separate articles. --Dystopos 14:04, 30 November 2006 (PST)
- Oh, good point. That makes ripping out the last portions even easier. So should the article be moved to Tutwiler Hotel (1914)? And I'll have to undo my categorization changes. (Oops.) --Lkseitz 14:16, 30 November 2006 (PST)
- I think you're already ahead of me in thinking over the best strategy. --Dystopos 14:25, 30 November 2006 (PST)
Copyright?
Please pardon my suspicions, but as this entry was created by the self-confessed director of sales for the Tutwiler, it strikes me not as something that was written specifically for BhamWiki, but a press release or news story that was conveniently lying around. The last three paragraphs, in particular, sound like a press release about the hotel's remodeling. And after some searching I found the source for those. [1]
So my question is, where do we go from here? I can rip out the last three paragraphs or so and rewrite those. (In fact, I was probably going to anyway.) But what do we do about the rest? Even if the first part is not infringing, a source for the quotes would be nice. --Lkseitz 14:13, 30 November 2006 (PST)
- The text should be copyedited to comply with our policy on neutrality and verifiability, and expanded. While it would be best to avoid plaigiarizing from the the Tutwiler's publicity, I don't think copyright per se will be an issue since the contributor is no doubt acting on behalf of the copyright-holder and is empowered to place the work under our CC license. Bottom line, it can be improved but there's no emergency. In my opinion it provided a good starting place for what will no doubt soon be a fine pair of articles. --Dystopos 14:24, 30 November 2006 (PST)
I made some changes to the history section so it's a little less breathless. -- Rob 19:02, 30 November 2006 (PST)