Talk:Deep Eddy Pool

Questions

I don't know much about assessment either (though I helped get New Carissa to FA status), but I have some general editing questions/comments about the article:

• Doesn't "swimming pool" imply "man-made"? (or, as I prefer to say, "artificial")
• What is this "diving baby" of which you speak?
• Some more wikification might be in order, but other than that, like BigrTex said, this looks really good. It's at least a B-class, I think. If I have time later I can give it a more thorough going-over if you want to try to get it to GA-status or beyond.

Yours in NRHP-itude, Katr67 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• In Texas, swimming pools are not necessarily man-made -- the other major swimming pool in Austin is Barton Springs Pool. While the pool was enlarged by the addition of a dam, the basic pool is natural, not man-made.
• The diving baby certainly isn't central to the article, but is mentioned to give some flavor to the circus side-show like qualities that the pool had at one point in its history. Apparently, the baby was a good swimmer at an early age.

Thanks for your efforts, SteveHopson 22:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit (formatted the pictures to hopefully make the text flow better, and added a link to the National Register entry). I wish the marker pic was smaller, but that's more an infobox problem with tall pictures, really. As far as rating, hard for me to say. I have trouble rating anything above a Stub-class. It's obviously at least a Start (which is what I'd enter, but then I think under-rating an article is better than over-rating), but differentiating between that and a B... Tell you what, I'm going to rate it a Start. It can always be bumped up. Anyone who's better at the rating thing, do feel free.  :) --Ebyabe 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy Vio

I originally placed the copyvio tag on this article because the exact text was found on http://www.deepeddy.org/pool.html. Upon Further investigation, it is found that that website pulled their information from the English Wikipedia. The original article creation date is 19:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC). According to Archive.org, on 05/07/2006 the only thing that existed of that website was this: Friends of Deep Eddy on Archive.org. Their page looks like it has always had the © Copyright 2005 FODE at the bottom of it, even with no text. So my conclusion is they pulled the text from us, and then declared it was copy written under them, which violates the GFDL under which this work is held. Dillard421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 15:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, I have rolled back my own edit, addition of the Copyvio Template. Dillard421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 15:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good sleuthing. :) I suspect that they aren't infringing on us, though, as their board of directors includes Steve Hopson, who created this article. If this is the same Steve Hopson, he did not relinquish copyright, but retained the right to use the material elsewhere however he sees fit. Since it was not previously published there, though, we have no reason to question the licensing of it here, and that license is perpetual. Our readers and reusers, of course, also have license to use and modify it under GFDL and, now, CC-By-SA. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! As far as the Licensing goes, aren’t things that are created before a certain date, what is it..June 15th, 2009..under the GFDL? So that revision that is located on that website would be under the GFDL..the current revision under the CC-By-SA. I guess since he created it, then it would be up to him to do what he wanted with it, or would it? Does material that is published on the wikipedia become property of Wikipedia and therefore falls under the corresponding licenses? I’m really not sure and I don’t particularly care as far as that legality goes, just curious. How does that work? What I have read about the GFDL, says you can republish the work, that’s not a problem, even change it, but one thing I have always read is that the republisher must provide a copy of the GFDL...by pasting such text...

Copyright (c) YEAR YOUR NAME.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

— Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

But since he created the work, he has the right to license it however he sees fit, I would assume. It’s a confusing subject, but I feel you are probably the right one to ask! :) hehe Dillard421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they're under GFDL but we got a one-time permission from GNU to retroactively release all GFDL content generated here under CC-By-SA, so everything generated here prior to June 15, 2009 is co-licensed and can be reused under either license. There are some who have questioned whether we can do this without consent of individuals, but the general feeling is that since GNU granted it and our release was under GNU, we're good. Wikipedia doesn't claim ownership of user-generated content on its site (a good idea, since it would then be liable for whatever content was placed here), but that's how that transition worked. As far as his reusing the text, you're right that he created it and has the right to license it however he sees fit. He can publish it under copyright notice elsewhere. If he copied it from Wikipedia with modifications placed by somebody else, he'd have to license it under GFDL or CC-By-SA. As long as he uses his own original text, he doesn't have to. But he can't stop Wikipedia's users from having at it here. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for clearing that up! :) Dillard421♂♂ ^{(talk to me)} 18:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)