Talk:South Africa/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates up to 6 April 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Thank you.  --Slashme 17:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

message: Under the new Monobook skin, the table that starts opposite the Other names section covers the horizontal line that breaks that headline. Can someone who is more able tidy this up please? -- TonyW 03:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info crossover (cosmetic) 

message: I moved Former Symbols from SA main page to history page as I did not think taht they were relevent to the main page as it is about SA now and not then. --68.80.223.233 18:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Former Symbols

message: The user continually removing sections from the site has obviously not read the Terms and Use section on the southafrica.info website, which does allow the use of its material on a non-commercial site like Wikipedia:
Copyright
8. The IMC retains copyright in the website and all current and future content that is displayed on the website which is not owned by third parties.
In terms of a limited license, granted for general use, the IMC grants you, the user, subject to these terms and conditions, a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited and revocable right to access, display, use, download and otherwise copy the current and future content of the website for your personal, non-commercial and informational purposes only.
The website owner grants the user the permission to copy and distribute the information from the website provided that it notifies the webmaster of such use and provided that the source of the information is acknowledged by reference to the source. (emphasis mine)
The website and content may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, resold or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose without the express prior written consent of the IMC. Impi 12:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this compatible with Wikipedia/GFDL?  Since we're trying to stop people uploading "copyrighted non-commercial-use-only" images, shouldn't the same apply to the text?  I think the only resolution for this is if the owners of safrica.info grant a specific exception to wikipedia to have their text relicenced. Dewet 15:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not compatible with GFDL.  "Materials for which commercial redistribution is prohibited generally cannot be used in a GFDL-licensed document, e.g., a Wikipedia article, because the license does not exclude commercial re-use. However in some specific cases, commercial re-uses may be fair use and in that case such materials do not need to be licensed to fall within the GFDL if such fair use is covered by all potential subsequent uses. One good example of such liberal and commercial fair use is parody.  Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks is full of examples of Wikipedia being used for commercial purposes such as advertising.  --Henrygb 17:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: Where does the figure of 4.79 million HIV infections come from?  According to UNAIDS, 21.5% of the country's adult population - that is, 5.3 million people - was infected at the end of 2003.  Could source be cited, or should this figure be changed?
--24.215.188.27 01:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy 

message: Were did the this image "BAHA-apartheid-signage.jpg" come from? I never seen it before not even in the apartheid museum. Is it a hoax or for real? What proof is there that it exsisted?--Jcw69 18:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It came from the History of South Africa article. I'm more than happy to see it replaced, I just need more images. Do you have any good ones? Páll 21:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I find interesting is that the sign in the photograph is only in English. While that might not strike anybody from outside SA as odd, anybody who lived in apartheid-era SA would tell you that all such signs were either both in Afrikaans and English or sometimes just Afrikaans. Certainly, considering the language policy of the government at that time, this sign would either have been a sign on the property of some English-speaking individual or company, or it is a hoax. Elf-friend 08:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that the last line is in Afrikaans {Vir gebruik...)  — mark ✎ 18:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text:  I think that this sign is a hoax or belonged to some english farmer because the government or Boers (farmers) did not use the word "natives", it was either K____s, Bantu, or Blacks.
Páll I not have any photos from that era, because I was too young, but I will sometime visit the apartheid museum again in a few months time and sneak a camera in :-) (I don't remember if they allow cameras in, if not cell phone one will do)--Jcw69 17:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the sign is likely to be real, but signs like that were not typical.  The article should be illustrated with more typical signs, such as separate entrances for "Blankes / Europeans" and "Nie Blankes / Non Europeans", or "Slegs Blankes / Whites Only".  (I think it was always "Blankes" in Afrikaans, but sometimes "Whites" and sometimes "Europeans" in English.)  —AlanBarrett 19:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I know, the older signs said "Europeans", but that confused some American visitors, who naturally used the "Non-European" entrances, so it was changed to the more explicit "Whites". Elf-friend 21:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danger sign 

message: Why on earth is the infobox not showing at the top? Besides, does that image represent the whole country? We need to swap it. In fact, I'm going to do it now. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox