Talk:Army Public Schools & Colleges System

== Article name ==

This article needs a new name, to reflect which "Army" is involved. Any of these names would seem to be acceptable: "Pakistan Army Public School and College" or "Army of Pakistan Public School and College" or "Army Public School and College (Pakistan)". Thanks for helping. Tim Ross (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You can move the page yourself, you know...  fetchcomms☛ 23:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If you need help deciding a name, you could go to WP:PAK and ask their opinion. :) —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪ How's my driving?} 00:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the useful advice! I should be able to handle it now. Tim Ross (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Army Public School & College System (APSACS).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Army Public School & College System (APSACS).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation removed

[1] This content is a direct copy & paste from this [2] websit. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

About the removal of the list of branches, there's no copyright law that can copyright the names of branches of an institution (which would already be registered trademarks of that). The list of names should be reverted back into the article. Can't speak for rest of the content. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a direct copy & paste from another website, hence it is a copyvio. It is also unsourced. If you wish to restore it, rewrite and cite it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the above at all? The website can have a list of the schools but it can not copy right that list. This is not a copyvio. I think you found the source yourself, so that might be added and also the content will fall under WP:CK as well. The only thing that would cause it to call a rewrite would be WP:MOS and that doesn't call for removal of the content until rewritten. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Go ask someone who knows. Re and that doesn't call for removal of the content until rewritten You again forget WP:V. Personally I doubt this article even meets WP:NOTE Darkness Shines (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Information that can be obtained from public property is common knowledge and does not need citation. Even after that, you do have a source of which you call it a copy vio. The names themselves cant be copy righted, you can use WP:3O if you want. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You really need to read the policy pages you link to A frequent justification in casual conversation is that a certain fact is "common knowledge". It often turns out that most people don't actually share this knowledge. Even claims that are widely believed often turn out to be anywhere from only mostly true to the complete opposite of what is actually the case. Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged to find reliable sources to support their edits, and to cite them. Citing sources when your edit is challenged by another editor is Wikipedia policy, and any unsourced edits may be removed. For more information, see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Go forth and find citations. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Plain sight observations that can be made from public property ("A tall spire sits atop the Empire State Building") this is what I'm talking about, and we do have a citation here - the one you found. Anyway, your objection on copyvio is completely invalid. A website can not own the names of a school. This would be ludicrous. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

{out)If you think the site were the content was copied from is WP:RS think again. And if you think I will traipse all over Pakistan to verify these buildings you may also think again. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a verification per WP:ABOUTSELF [3]. As for the article itself to be based on reliable sources and its notability - I'll add those sources to the deletion discussion for now and later to the article. Funny how you never make an effort to check or confirm whether sources exist but are always ahead in knowing about possible copy vios (which don't turn out correct either). --lTopGunl (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

A map of dots? How exactly does this verify those names and places? And if you look at the AFD you will se I most certainly did look for reliable secondary sources which discuss this in detail, there are none. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you find difficulty in map reading you might want to read the place names that are clearly mentioned on it. If you meant to ask what these marks meant, see [4]. Well, that discussion for there then... on a side note, you might want to nominate Indian Army Public Schools per your theory as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I can read a map quite well, perhaps you should have linked to the second one first and not a map of dots. But again this "map" does not cover the content at all, no addresses to begin with. You might also stop commenting on myself and focus on the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Examples of other articles or aid in reviewing the sources aren't comments on you. The theory (correct or not) which you did actually present here about the deletion actually does serve for nomination of the article I suggested. I gave you the direct link assuming you were an experienced editor to get the fact. The cities are clearly cited in this case... that itself can get the content in. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Just checked the list, there are very few with addresses, most are just cities. The ones with addresses should rather have cn tags as well per my opinion. It is highly likely that citations exist and are not just cited in the article and would be found and added by other editors. The content in anyway is not objectionable and the cities are verified by a reliable official source. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• See my comments below, which bear on this discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Requesting comments from other editors

Is this even possible that this list of branches of the school can be copyrighted and be a copyvio per DS? [5]. If not, it should be restored. The fact that it is not in good formatting would just require a clean up tag. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is possible. But unless the format has been copied, it is not the case.

WP guidelines point, in part, to US law in the copyright area. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the issue of the application of copyright to fact in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991). In which it wrote (emphasis added): "A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts, but the copyright is limited to the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves."[6] So — a screenshot of the list of branches of the school as presented in a copyrighted work would, for example, be covered by copyright. But the mere listing of the facts of the branch information is not covered by copyright. There is no copyvio under US law as long as we have: a) attribution , and b) the format of the list is not a mirror of the original format. Per Feist.

That said, it is possible that there might be other reasons to not reflect such a long list, such as wp:UNDUE.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying here. I guess we can simply include the list (may be shuffle it or arrange it in alphabetical order?). About the point on undue, I guess we do have branch names in articles those separate schools might even get an article on each one of them. They are in anycase of local importance and notability. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Limiting myself only to the question of possible copyvio, my view -- based on the fact that wp guidelines point (in pertinent part) to US law, and given the aforementioned US caselaw -- is that an alpha presentation of the list would not constitute a copyvio if it is properly referenced.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That was was Darkness Shine's objection who claimed you to be in disagreement. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• You are still claiming this yalk page gives you consensus to add this bumf? I see no agreement above at all, in fact the other editor says it would be undue to add it. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Dark. That's not precisely what I said. I said that, given the change in format, if properly referenced I myself did not see there being a copyvio. But that, it is possible that there might be other reasons to not reflect such a long list, such as wp:UNDUE. As to the last point, I don't know the answer. Either of you might want to check with DGG, or post at an appropriate noticeboard -- it might be fine. Though the current format is difficult to follow, and for the sake of readability would be better if put into columns.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, feel free to improve the formatting if you want. There's no copy vio here. If you feel there is, you can call in another opinion too.. but as clarified by Epeefleche, and per common sense, copyrights can not extend to facts themselves. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Urdu

I want to 103.152.100.138 (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I'm a student in sudia

I want to join this school from sudia Arabia is there any way to do exam's online? So if I I selected I will come to Pakistan to join . Pls help me . My email is noor0533491579@gmail.com 2001:16A2:55B1:9200:4908:C7:306C:7055 (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)