Talk:Districts of Ghana

Africa: Ghana Top‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ghana (assessed as Top-importance).

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other edit

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Districts of Ghana (history · last edit) from [1]. Also reported at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation Gwil 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Not sure if list can be copyrighted -- codes are not his format as claimed on Requests for immediate removal; they appear to be ISO codes. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
- I agree, Keep. The uploader claims the ISO codes originated with him, which is clearly false. I don't see how this could be a copyright violation. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Any further opinions? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Though call. After consideration, I tend to think that indeed it is a copyvio, though not for the reasons brought forth by Gwil. Here's my reasoning:
  1. The facts themselves, including these ISO codes, cannot be copyrighted, and are thus in the public domain. Even if there may have been substantial effort in collecting these facts, that doesn't make them copyrightable. Sorry, Gwil.
  2. However, the presentation of these facts can be copyrighted. Gwil chose to present the raw data at his web page as a table, including a specific set of data: name, ISO code, type, population, area, and capital. Furthermore, he chose to only present data of 110 out of a total of 138 districts. Both the selection of data and the precise means of presentation constitute creative acts and make in my view the table as a whole copyrightable. See also WP:PD#Uncreative works (the Eckes v. Card Prices Update, and following paragraph.)
  3. Our article reproduces exactly the same data and presents it in a manner that is virtually the same: also a table, with the same columns, of the same subset of 110 districts. That is a copyright violation. Note that other forms of presentation can be envisioned easily: if the article showed a map of Ghana, showing the districts and their capitals, and the ISO codes, area, and population in the appropriate spots, it would be fine copyright-wise even though it used the exact same data. (A map is available from the FAO, from this report from 1991. Maybe newer ones also exist.)
  4. Gwil's claim that he makes money from selling the data is of no consequence here: if one wants to sell data, one shouldn't make it publicly accessible by anyone.
  5. Gwil's statement that he doesn't want to see changed versions on Wikipedia also is not very pertinent: we have to fight vandalism on a lot of other articles, too. In general, we manage to do quite well to maintain the integrity and factual correctness of articles, especially in cases such as this.
  6. Our article doesn't even acknowledge where the data comes from. In my view, even if it weren't a copyright violation, it would be plagiarism. It certainly is sloppy sourcing. At the very least it should have had a "References" section giving the link to the external source.
  7. If our article included different information (such as on the 28 missing districts, or adding the population of the capitals, or maybe even only more recent population data, or even only organizing the table differently, such as listing by region instead of alphabetically over all regions), I do not think it would still be a copyright violation. It should still reference the external source(s).
- In conclusion: I believe it is a copyvio and should thus be deleted and rewritten. However, maybe we can avoid going through such a rigmarole. Gwil, I don't think the table was copied with malicious intent, the uploader probably thought the table was not eligible to copyright as it was "only facts". I have outlined some simple ways Wikipedia could use the same data without infringing your copyright. Wouldn't it be easier if you agreed to license the table under the GFDL, and we'd add the suggested reference section? On a side note, why hasn't anyone asked OldakQuill about this? What does he say where he got the data from? I have left him a note now. Lupo 16:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
  BTW, there's a wealth of information on the districts of Ghana here, which is even linked from the official website of the government of Ghana. Lupo 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
  Also compare the arguments brought forth in the similar case here, which is also about a list of facts. Lupo 10:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
  - Just to keep the facts straight, the ISO codes are of the form GH.XX (for regions); the HASC codes involved in the copyvio are GH.XX.YY (for districts). There are no ISO codes for districts of Ghana. At the present time, the HASC codes for the regions (the GH.XX part of GH.XX.YY) are identical to the ISO codes for the regions (with a trivial difference of punctuation), but that situation is transitory; for many other countries the two code sets are different.
  - The reason I have only 110 districts listed is that I was presenting the situation as of 2000-01-01. I did mention the 28 new districts by name; however, I don't have information on the new ones to the same level of detail.
  - I'm sure you can understand that it was upsetting to find a Wikipedia page that was almost identical to my own prior work. True, I give out the information for free on my website. True, when I sell it, my selling point is just to save a customer the labor of compiling all the countries of the world into a single table. I'm aware that data per se cannot be copyrighted.
  - If you want to put together an original table and use my HASC codes, fine. I've gathered information from many other websites, including Wikipedia. But I always rework it into my own format, combining data from several independent sources. I'm not sure the HASC codes are even of encyclopedic interest, because they're not an international standard. I envision them being used as a house standard for internal use in a specific application. Gwil 04:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

New district edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There appears to be a newly carved out Kwahu East district. Badagnani (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Districts of Ghana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ordinary, Municipal and Metropolitan Districts edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are there any difference in the structure of the assemblies and powers/responsibilities they possess, or is the difference simply the name of the designation based on the population of the district? This probably needs to be made clear? --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Capitalisation edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

should "district" really be capitalised? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic