Talk:GAMA Platform

Notability issue

Hello @Salimfadhley:,

You recently re-refuse this draft because of notability issue which I'd like to contest. Based on the Wikipedia:Notability page, the GAMA-Platform software enter the description as :

> It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.

Indeed, the software is used for several years in the scientific community (cf. Google Scholar's search result here : https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=gama-platform and scientific researches listed on the official website there : https://gama-platform.github.io/wiki/References and there : https://gama-platform.github.io/wiki/Projects ).

Moreover, the GAMA community propose some training session (9 in 2019 and 3 in 2020) on the software around the world based on the official Facebook Page's calendar here : https://www.facebook.com/pg/GamaPlatform/events/?ref=page_internal

We also could include it as this point :

> It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability.

As listed on the website (and display as a removed tab on the page), this software is developed since 2009 (ref: https://gama-platform.github.io/wiki/OlderVersions ).

On the notability point, based on the Github API, the version 1.8.0 has been download more than 7k times (display of the API results by one of the main developer : https://benoitgaudou.github.io/testGitHubAPI/) and over 1k for the docker container ( https://hub.docker.com/r/gamaplatform/gama )

Finally, the software have a french Wikipedia page here : https://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Gama_Platform

Based on all of this, I'll be thankful to describe me if all this state is enough to meet Wikipedia's notability standard and what should I change to have this page officially accepted. RoiArthurB (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion it is not notable, but if you feel that it is, feel free to re-list the draft. Somebody else might be willing to approve it. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Copyright issues

https://gama-platform.github.io/wiki/Home and related pages have a CC-by-SA logo at the bottom, but without knowing which specific license is intended, we can't copy from there, because not all CC-by-SA licenses are compatible with Wikipedia's license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, All the documentation of the GAMA Platform project is under the GFDL licence and the specify pages where I rewrite the less the text has been set under CC-BY-SA license too avoid that problem. I'll be glad to learn how to inform Wikipedia that the license match the Wiki's one (I'll just follow the documentation that I've learned).

Regards, --RoiArthurB (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Right now all you've got on your documentation webpages is an image of a CC-by-SA logo. Because not all CC-by-SA licenses are compatible with ours, what you need to do is have is a way for people to tell exactly which license you've released the material under. Here's an example of how to do it. Here's another example. In the second example, clicking on the link reveals which license they've chosen. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I've edited the footer of the whole website to explicitly inform that all the content is under the GFDL, is that enough now and can the content be revert? 🙂 --RoiArthurB (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The GFDL is a compatible license only if partnered with a compatible CC-by or CC-by-SA license. Please see this page for a list of compatible Creative Commons licenses. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Every linked page are under GFDL AND CC-By license now (I changed from CC-BY-SA). Are we good now? --RoiArthurB (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing your Creative Commons license; for example this page states that the license is as follows:

"License: Copyright (C) - 2019 GAMA-Platform. 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 here, in the repository of the wiki content."

There's still no indication (other than the logo) that the content is released a Creative Commons license, and no indication as to which version of the license has been chosen. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

First, the website is a little long to regenerate (~40minutes) so for now the logo is still CC-BY-SA, but it will change to CC-BY in a couple of minutes (see here for the build: https://travis-ci.org/gama-platform/gama-platform.github.io );

Second, the CC logo + the GFDL application in the Footer isn't enough to correspond to Wikipedia's compatible license? --RoiArthurB (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No it is not. A logo is not a license. I said that in my very first post. Please specify on the documents which license is being used. Here are some compatible licenses: CC BY-SA 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0; CC BY 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0. So which of these nine licenses is it? Add that to each webpage in the section about licenses. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Done, I've explicitly added the CC-BY 4.0 Licence on every tagged pages. Are we good this time? --RoiArthurB (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Now it is properly done. I have re-added the content and demonstrated how to indicate on Wikipedia what the license is and that it's been copied and from where. Thank you for your patience. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to submit that draft, but my previous one has been stiked because it was too promotional. Do you think that this version is submittable or should I change something? --RoiArthurB (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Just wait and see what the reviewers have to say. Be patient; it may take a while; there's a big backlog. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)