Difference between revisions of "Talk:Vancouver"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(If you're going to copy/paste, then at least find more recent data...) |
(→Copy-pasted: +cmt) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
From the section '''History''' to '''Religion in Vancouver''' is taken from the Wikipedia's "Vancouver" section '''Demographics''' and the 2nd paragraph of the article. Is it okay to leave it like this?<br /> | From the section '''History''' to '''Religion in Vancouver''' is taken from the Wikipedia's "Vancouver" section '''Demographics''' and the 2nd paragraph of the article. Is it okay to leave it like this?<br /> | ||
The religion data is out-dated. There are Census results for 2006. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 15:41, 23 December 2011 (EST) | The religion data is out-dated. There are Census results for 2006. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 15:41, 23 December 2011 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :JonM suggests that the content on Wikipedia was copied from "the website of vancouver" but it's not even a month since this was added and the link to the Vancouver website doesn't seem to work and I can't find the content anywhere on the website. Even if this was on the Vancouver website, what would be the copyright situation there? It doesn't look like it's in the public domain. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 15:16, 15 January 2012 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 20:16, January 15, 2012
Copy-pasted
From the section History to Religion in Vancouver is taken from the Wikipedia's "Vancouver" section Demographics and the 2nd paragraph of the article. Is it okay to leave it like this?
The religion data is out-dated. There are Census results for 2006. ~ JonG ~ 15:41, 23 December 2011 (EST)
- JonM suggests that the content on Wikipedia was copied from "the website of vancouver" but it's not even a month since this was added and the link to the Vancouver website doesn't seem to work and I can't find the content anywhere on the website. Even if this was on the Vancouver website, what would be the copyright situation there? It doesn't look like it's in the public domain. Adambro 15:16, 15 January 2012 (EST)