Talk:Encyclopedia of Life

message: The correct name is "Encyclopedia of Life" (EOL) not "The Encyclopedia of Life".  BirdHunters 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the article from "The Encyclopedia of Life" back to the correct name "Encyclopedia of Life" (EOL) the word "THE" goes in the first sentence of the article not in the article's name. BirdHunters 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: "The estimated cost will be 110.5 million dollars [12]" This information is taken from a Canadian source. 1 US-Dollar ~ 1,105 Canadian Dollars, so maybe it's just the 100 million US-Dollars multiplied by 1,105 and not a new information at all... --84.134.84.66 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian or US-Dollars?

message: Does this include PAST creatures as well? Dinosaurs and alike? -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.132.86 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-23tT04:40:54z
:"The initial focus will be on animals and plants, then later fungi and microbes, and finally extinct species."--43.244.133.36 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "All known species..."

message: Hello,
Yes, I was reverted earlier : here, which seem to have done a mistake on his revert.
Then you reverted my edit on Encyclopedia of Life. My sources come from the respecting websites and are not hard to check : you can first look on the wikipedia entries Wikispecies, Encyclopedia of Life, and on the respectives websites.
A better question is : where should go this table ? I think this table should go in an article "Web encyclopedy of life projects", listing the current main projects, ans their respectives fearture. I'm not an english speaker, so I don't dare choice a name for this.
Your help is welcome. 140.122.97.4 (talk) 08:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Encyclopedia of Life|EOL]]: "I revert this IP because this IP was already reverted earlier" 

message: EOL is mostly licensed with Creative Commons 3.0 (attribution share-alike). If that is the case, can content be copied into Wikipedia? If that is done, how can the attribution and share-alike notices be made? Nesbit (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, can GFDL Wikipedia content be copied into the EOL?  Or only dual-licensed CC Wikipedia content? -kslays 17:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (These questions are unrelated to the article, and so should probably be asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) instead (they'll get more attention there too). See also the mailing list thread at The WikiEN-l Archives (starting here). Let us know where you ask, or what you find out, as I'd be interested too. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incompatible licenses they use include CC-BY, CC-BY-NC, and CC-BY-NC-SA . -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-12-19t07:28z
Is it correct that CC-licensed EOL content may be copied verbatim into Wikipedia now that it is also CC licensed? Actually, I'll get ask at the Village Pump and come back here with a confirmation. -kslays (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Looks like all CC-BY and CC-BY-SA content is allowed, and may be copied word for word, providing  is used to satisfy attribution. Anything Non-Commercial (NC) cannot be copied into Wikipedia. So, editors, feel free to cut, paste, and integrate! -kslays (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The EOL content is licensed with creative commons: Can it be copied into WP? If so how to meet the attribution and share-alike requirements? 

message: Consider changing the information or deleting the article altogether? The wayback machine still has some saved copies, but otherwise this is totally archaic. 2001:1970:48A7:CD00:1D6C:692A:21D7:D0E8 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Some articles exist normally, but most require the wayback machine to access. Should this be mentioned in the article? Beargoesshid (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  This website is not active anymore.