Talk:Fabric structure

Copyright

There is no copyright infringement here. This information came from our website, www.fabricstructures.com, and I have referenced it at the bottom. Here is the direct link: http://www.fabricstructures.com/images/mahaffey%20FABRIC%20SPECIFICATION%20GUIDE.doc Please advise as to why this keeps being deleted. There is no blatant advertising, and no copyrighting.Mtc38118 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As I pointed out at your talk page, the page from which the information is duplicated, here as online version, indicates that "Information provided herein adapted and reprinted with permission from Fabric Architecture, a publication of the Industrial Fabrics Association International (IFAI)." This assertion of permission does not verify that the material here has been released per GFDL, which means in part that it can be used commercially or noncommercially, altered and redistributed as Wikipedia's readers see fit, so long as authorship credit is maintained. If you have permission from IFAI to release this information according to GFDL, you should send an email with verification to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. Once verification is received, the copyright notice can be removed from the article and the contents restored, although other issues that have led to its prior deletion may still exist. I'll take a look at that in a minute, after I've properly filed your incomplete permission assertion for further evaluation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

All right. Looking at the history here, it seems that the article which you originally placed here was moved to Fabric structures. There, it was deleted by an administrator named Gwen Gale on June 6th under criterion WP:CSD#G11, which is for articles that exist only to promote some entity. Her note in the log indicates that "text is platform for a URL". The most recent deletion, here, was in response to the copyright concerns. As I've explained, having permission to reprint the information on your website is not necessarily sufficient for Wikipedia's purpose, which requires that it be released by GFDL for reuse and revision by anyone. If you have permission from your cited source to release the information in that way, sending that to the permissions address above will alleviate that. In terms of promotional considerations, you may wish to consider sourcing the article to its original IFAI publication rather than directing to the document at your website, which will not only be more satisfactory in terms of verification through a reliable source, but will alleviate any concerns of a conflict of interest in providing this information or appearance of subtle promotional purpose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Info

I hold the copyright to this text, per our website, and permit its use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. I am submitting an email of the right to use as we speak. Please advise. Also, can you check on fabric structures, too, and make sure that information is restored as well? Thank you. Mtc38118 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Once the e-mail has been cleared to ensure that we comply with GFDL, then the contents of this article will be restored. Thanks for sending that in. It may be a few days before your e-mail is evaluated, but I'm sure that it will be handled as promptly as possible. Please note that there may be some question if you assert that you hold the copyright to the text, unless you are also connected to the IFAI as the duplicated page suggests IFAI has rights to release the material. If you are connected with the IFAI or otherwise can demonstrate that you have the authority to release the material, then that should be no problem.

With regards to the deleted content at fabric structures, it is not Wikipedia's practice to have duplicate articles under two titles, so restoring that would not necessarily be of benefit here. Once the GFDL question is cleared up, then it should simply be sufficient to create a redirect from that space to point to the article here. I wouldn't advise doing so until your e-mail is received and evaluated and this article's contents are restored, though. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Once this is cleared, I will set up a re-direct, instead of creating a new article. I'm sorry; I wasn't aware of that. Thanks again, and please keep me posted. Mtc38118 (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many disparate policies and practices to learn when entering the Wikipedia environment, I know. It can take a while to get the hang of things. When the letter is received and cleared, the copyright notice on the top will be removed and the last full content restored to the article. Often, a note will be left on this talk page as well. As I have this page on my "watchlist" (see Help:Watching pages if you would like to "watch" it as well), I will note when further action has been taken, and I would be happy to drop a note on your talk page about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any change on this yet? Thanks, and please advise. Mtc38118 (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. As I mentioned above, you might commonly expect the matter to take a few days. Clearance letters go to a specific place and are evaluated by a specific group of contributors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I emailed it to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org, so I want to make sure that's right. Thanks again for all your help. Mtc38118 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org. :) (I've altered your above to read the same, as Wikipedia gets trawled for e-mail addresses quite a lot.) It will reach The communications committee, and once it's been handled they'll leave a note here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Permission

A generic statement of permission is insufficient. Wikipedia needs an permanent and irrevocable license of the test under the GFDL. Thank you -- Avi (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Permission received and archived. -- Avi (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Using "our"

Problematic sentense (use of "our"):

Our WSSL'S fabric supplier, Ferrari, places the polyester fabric under tension ...

--Mortense (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

merge

I suggest merging the tension fabric building article into the fabric structure article. As far as I can tell from reading the articles themselves, they describe more-or-less the same structures.

In particular, the tension fabric building currently says

"Tension Fabric Buildings are commonly referred to as: Fabric Structures, Fabric Tension Buildings, Cover-All Buildings, Fabric Buildings, Hoop Buildings, Quonset Structures, Sport Halls, Tents and Bubbles." (emphasis added)

which seems to say they are same thing, or close enough that one encyclopedia article could cover both with a brief section pointing out the differences (if any). --DavidCary (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that this article refers to a form of pre-engineered building that is primarily or totally covered with a tensioned fabric cladding. Therefore, the tensioned fabric is a complementary but critically differentiating aspect to the primary topic of the building. The article on fabric structures is more general about architectural exterior fabric coverings for structures, tensioned or otherwise.Extraordinary Spaces (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Extraordinary Spaces

I think a merge is possible here, I'm a fan of having one good, thorough, complete article rather than a bunch of stubs. I see the potential for both articles to be strengthened by a merge. FYI I have contributed mostly to the tension fabric building article and, full disclosure, the shot of the little hoop building in that article is one I took. I guess I'd just want to see two things: 1) More about the inner support structures of these buildings discussed (what makes them stay up, in other words, not just what the fabrics are made of, which seems the focus of this article) and 2) that the people who understand architecture and building construction to weigh in here and be sure that we aren't merging apples and oranges into "fruit." Also, are we merging in the correct direction? When I first saw "fabric structure," I initially thought, "sure hope this won't lead me to tent." (smile). FInally, I wouldn't want anything in the tension fabric article removed in the merge, though it could use cleanup, that's for sure. There is important info there on building codes and safety that is missing from this article. But all this is fixable, so I'm leaning in support. Montanabw^(talk) 19:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merge to Membrane structure Weak Support quality merge between fabric and tension fabric for now, but I agree that possibly with work, the various concepts can be grouped. However, the original merge was proposed last April and went nowhere, so until someone actually wants to do the work ( and it's "not I, said the cat" for me) I don't think it's worth spending a lot of bandwidth to discuss. Montanabw^(talk) 21:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)