Template talk:Copyvio Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

I'd like to suggest changing the text of this message to address the user adding content and "kindly" ask them to check our policies before adding any more content. Maybe something along the lines of:

"The content of this page has been found to contain copyrighted material in violation of our Copyright policies. Please refer to our policies and guidelines before adding more content."

Should there also be something about how to release copyright to WT by making a note on the talk page, or does that just confuse the issue?

Comments? (WT-en) Majnoona 16:14, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

I don't think that a release of copyright is really what we are after. All we need is a license. Specifically we need for the content which folks add to WT to be offered with a license which whose terms will be met by re-distributors of WT under the terms of our license. IANAL, please correct me if I am missing something. -- (WT-en) Mark 17:10, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

Err, an IP user changed the template text and I have to say, no, sorry, I don't think it's better ;-) I was hoping to work out the new wording here on the talk page, since it's a change that will show up on many pages. I'm going to roll it back and move the suggested text her for reworking. (WT-en) Majnoona 17:46, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

OK, it looks like it was more than one edit, I'm not going to roll it back, but can it be shorter? How about:

   This page appears to contain content which is a copyright violation. 
   Please refer to our policies and guidelines before adding more content. 
   If you are the author of the content in question, please let us know that it's OK for us to use your work. 

   The content in question appears to have been appropriated from:-

It might not hurt to explain things in more detail on the policies & guidelines page if folks think there needs to be more explination. (WT-en) Majnoona 17:50, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

Yes, the "is this any better?" edit was very much prompted by the three edits that immediately preceded it. FWIW the proposed shorter version looks good to me.

Or:

   This page appears to contain content which is a copyright violation. 
   Please refer to our policies and guidelines before adding more content. 
    
   If you are the author of the content in question, please let us know that it's OK for us to use your work. 
    
   The content in question appears to have been appropriated from:-

it's a change that will show up on many pages - it's currently only on three article pages, but also on eight "talk" pages - which is correct?

see http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template%3ACopyvio

Uh, could you login or create a user account? thanks. Anyway, I was speaking more in general re:template content changes. Some of the other templates are used in thousands of articles so I dont think the usual "plunge forward" mentality holds here... but I'll go ahead and make the edits I'd like to see... (WT-en) Majnoona 20:01, 21 Feb 2006 (EST)

Proposed update:

Advantages:

• This template has a border, so it stands out. See Guayaquil for an example of how easily the current template blends in.
• The source URL is included in the template, making it more likely that anyone using this template will include it.
• Information is provided about how to resolve a copyvio and there are also links to explain what a copyvio is for those who don't understand.

Would anyone be opposed to updating this template with the above text? Assuming that this isn't too controversial of a change, I'll make the change soon unless there are concerns raised. -- (WT-en) Ryan 15:50, 12 April 2006 (EDT)

Minor quibble: I changed "appears to contain content that is a..." to "contains content that appears to be...". There's no question of what's on the page; the question is whether what's there is OK to use.

Otherwise, no objection. One proposed upgrade for the future: maybe we should have Template:copyvioimage and Template:copyviotext, so that we could drop the kind of abstract word "content" for more concrete (well, slightly more concrete) "image" or "text". --(WT-en) Evan 20:42, 12 April 2006 (EDT)

I wouldn't be opposed to splitting image/text copyvio templates, although for now I think that the new template should be an improvement over the old one, which is more or less invisible to me (see Guayaquil), and which provides no info on how to resolve the problem. I'll update it shortly - articles that include the current template will also need to be updated since the URL is now included. -- (WT-en) Ryan 20:55, 12 April 2006 (EDT)

It seems the great majority of suspected copyvios are also vfd'd. Is there any chance we can merge the vfd and copyvio templates to include a link to the vfd page. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 05:53, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

I don't have much of an opinion, but it's worth noting that only copyvio images are usually vfd'd. The text in copyvio articles is usually just removed from an article. -- (WT-en) Ryan 05:56, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

True, maybe creating the {{copyvioimage}} template would be wise and use the current template for text. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 05:58, 22 September 2006 (EDT)

This template seems like a straightforwardly bad idea to me. If someone comes across a copyright violation, they should remove it. We use templates like these for suggested merges as well, and those usually get left up for years before a merge happens (if it ever happens). We should not be leaving copyright violations, tagged or not, on our site, especially if someone's already detected it. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:39, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Swept in from the pub

By the way is there anybody who checks for copyright violations? --Unger (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2012 (CEST)

Tagging rather than solving causes us problems. If text is added that is copied from elsewhere, it should be removed immediately until the author can provide permission. Once it has been there for a few months, there are so many re-users of the same text, than pinning down who copied who is quite difficult. --Inas (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2012 (CEST)

This template was mentioned in passing when discussing two other pointless templates, but was never formally vfded. Do we need this? — Ravikiran (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Delete Template:Copyvio. Tags like copyvio and merge sit around for a long time. That's not a problem with Template:Merge, but a copyvio gets really hard to decipher years later, as our site is copied and mirrored--copyvios should always be taken care of on sight, and this template discourages that. --Peter ^Talk 19:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Keep per Inas. I'm neutral on the utility of this template, but if we decide not to keep it then it should be converted to a redirect to either Template:Vfd, Template:Speedy or another appropriate target to ensure it isn't re-created by a well-meaning user who expects it to be here. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Should be redirected if not kept, so that the copyvio issue is dealt with. --Rschen7754 22:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
• Weak Keep. My reasoning is that there are people that may put a copyvio tag on when they may not be so comfortable deleting content and may want someone else to confirm that they have it right. Of course, as soon as copyvio is confirmed, the content should be deleted. Perhaps we should put that in the template. --Inas (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Question. Did I act improperly by not deleting this article and instead de-copyvioing it? [1] I think it's important to know what our policy should be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

    I think your response was entirely reasonable. --Inas (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

    • You may want to consider revision deleting the copyrighted parts, but I think the use of revdel is still being discussed. --Rschen7754 11:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Keep. If the article history contains no usable content once the copyvio text is removed, the page should be deleted, not pasted over with {{smallcity}} with the copyvios preserved in the article history. For legal reasons, if the owner of the copyvio text complains later, that will require revision deletion - a selective process which is more admin work than if the copyvio were deleted-on-sight when it was originally created. I'd also prefer not to keep the "forked from WT revision" footer if it's pointing to copyvio text on that site which slipped under the sonar. K7L (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Of course that is only relevant if the entire article is a copyvio. --Inas (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Result: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply