Note that these definitions were simply copied from one of more than a dozen articles where they were already being used verbatim. Endangered language#Defining and measuring endangerment still contains a copy, which I was planning on linking to in lieu of using the template, after discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 118#Subpage for repeated content (just haven't gotten back to doing that). It's ridiculous to think we can't reproduce UNESCO's definitions when we use the terms in our articles, since they are UNESCO's terms, and we're identifying them as such. I can accept (in light of other WP guidelines) that it's probably better to have one copy that we can link to, rather than several copies strewn about — but to think we can't use even one copy of the definitions in the encyclopedia? These are defintions of terms; how can we use the terms without saying exactly how they're defined? Justlettersandnumbers suggested formatting them as a direct quote (which, of course, they are — and a cited one, at that). That's fine with me, since that's a trivial difference with the way it was before J. blanked out the definitions. - dcljr (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also ok with the way they were cited as a quote. It is essentially saying "UNESCO defines the following terms this way". We can't have that information without a verbatim quote and it's essential to give meaning to the categories of language vulnerability, because to change the definition would render the lists useless. James086Talk06:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a request made evidently of UNESCO to license this for reuse. (See the talk page). I hope they'll grant that! However, fair use is context specific. You can quote a few stanzas from a poem transformatively in an article about the poem, where you may not be able to just quote those stanzas without any support material. You may be able to quote definitions from UNESCO in broader context of an article about those definitions. When you use them by themselves, as they are in this template, it's a different matter. This may be a case where the material is better off not in template, unless license is granted. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. I'd like to use the "t" option, but ticket has not yet been received by OTRS. Requested immediate forwarding of same. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article redirected to non-infringing article. It's now been more than three months since Moonriddengirl wrote to UNESCO to ask for clarification of their licence, and there's been no reply. This page, titled like a subpage, is in fact just misnamed, and should probably be deleted (it is not in use). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
N In this case, we're in the clear. :) The source is dated from December 2010. The content in our article is older than that - over five years older with respect to some text. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted. Article has been deleted for a reason other than copyright concerns. --—Darkwind (talk) 05:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. I'd like to use the "t" option, but ticket has not yet been received by OTRS. Requested immediate forwarding of same. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Article redirected to non-infringing article. It's now been more than three months since Moonriddengirl wrote to UNESCO to ask for clarification of their licence, and there's been no reply. This page, titled like a subpage, is in fact just misnamed, and should probably be deleted (it is not in use). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
In this case, we're in the clear. :) The source is dated from December 2010. The content in our article is older than that - over five years older with respect to some text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Revdelete request added for admin attention. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)