Talk:Gosplan

Copyright Violation
The text below is copied from . May be a copyright violation.

Has any action been taken about this? If so, please make a note here. FrancisTyers 15:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * After two emails to the webmaster in one month, both receiving no response, I'm removing the Copyright tag. As a note, the original page does not have a Copyright notice on it and appears to be unmaintained. Anyone who disagrees with this, feel free to copyvio it. - FrancisTyers 12:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The text is also reproduced word-for-word here. Although it has a Copyright notice. - FrancisTyers 17:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Absense of copyright tag on a web page does not mean it is free. Only labelled as free is fee. Reverting.

Sorry for killing your job, but you really had to read about copyrights rules before diving into this kind of work. Mikkalai 18:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem man ;) Just saw it lying idle for a month and figured I might as well do something, could you put a copyvio tag on instead? I'll send an email to the globalsecurity webmaster and see if I get any more joy out of that. Didn't say anything about if it was copyvio or not, but I figure I'll rewrite it from that. - FrancisTyers 18:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Just got a reply from John E. Pike, the guy who wrote the article, he points us to the common source . Check out the bit about planning. - FrancisTyers 19:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I stored the text at Gosplan/temp (notice the notices at the page not to bookmark it). The LOC texts are in public domain However the text must be split, with proper attribution to LOC, between the article about Gosplan as organization and the article about Soviet economy planning, which is a section now: Economy of the Soviet Union. Mikkalai 20:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I added some more relevant texts there too. Regarding the LOC public domain is there a template we can use at the bottom of the page, something like the encyclopaedia brittanica one that goes something like "This article contains text from the public domain 1911 edition of the encyclopaedia brittanica"? Personally I think the best approach to take would be to decide on the sections first and then fill them in from the LOC info. This would avoid the problem I had before of splitting up continuous narrative. - FrancisTyers 21:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions
With most of the ministry/department names, we have a number of pieces of information we might want to include:


 * contraction in cyrillic (e.g. Госплан)
 * contraction transliterated (e.g. Gosplan)
 * full name in Russian cyrillic (e.g. Государственный комитет по планированию)
 * full name in Russian transliterated (e.g. Gosudarstvenny Komitet po Planirovaniyu)
 * full name in English (e.g. State Committee for Planning)

What do you reckon the best way of getting this information into the article would be? Personally I think using the transliterated contraction and then have an stub article about each one. This article can include the rest of the information along with a brief description of what the ministry/department does. Like I have done for Gosstandart, Goskomtrud and Gosstroy (they aren't perfect I'd appreciate your input).

Also, which should be bold, which should be italicised which should be in parentheses etc.?

- FrancisTyers 22:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Method of material balances section
It seems to me this whole section may as well be titled "Robert V. Daniels thoughts on Gosplan" since he's quoted three times and is the only source cited. I'm guessing the whole section is essentially a summary of his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.62.67.20 (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)