This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed Concensus Track. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the talk page or in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the discussion was Adopt dynamic copyright violation list, and delete copyright violation articles after one week.. —Silly Dan _(talk) 18:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

On User:Silly Dan/Copyvio sandbox, I've stolen Sikon's code from WP:VIP's dynamic section to list all of the copyvio-tagged pages we have. This sort of thing would be easier and faster to maintain than our current procedure of manually listing copyvio pages on WP:COPY and removing them when the violation is dealt with, since pages would be added and removed automatically.

If we change the instructions on {{copyvio}} to do this, I suggest making a few other changes to the procedure to further simplify things:

1. Rather than muck about with temp pages, perhaps the instructions should just tell our editors to either rewrite the article from scratch without the copyvio text, or revert to the last version which is not a copyright violation.
2. We should decide if we actually are going to delete week-old copyvio pages with no non-copyvio history: to my knowledge, this has never been done.
3. The url field should be optional, and supplemented with a "source" field for cases where a book rather than a website is copied.

Comments? —Silly Dan _(talk) 01:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm all for it. -- Ozzel 03:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed on all counts. jSarek 09:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds good. —Mirlen 21:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Go for it. - Sikon 09:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll make the change this weekend. In the meantime, rather than start a new CT thread, I'll retitle this one so we can vote on deleting old copyvio articles. —Silly Dan _(talk) 12:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting old copyvio articlesEdit

In cases where all revisions of an article are either (a) copyright violations, (b) the {{copyvio}} template, or (c) blank or nonsense text, should we:

Delete it after a week?Edit

If no one manages to fix it after a week, it can either be deleted, or have {{deletebecause}} put on it, supplying "old copyright violation" as the reason.

1. —Silly Dan _(talk) 12:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
2. --Imp 12:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. jSarek 19:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks^{Whine Here} 22:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 22:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Can I be the one who gets to delete them all? -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 22:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Azizlight 23:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC). And list the deleted articles either on the copyvio page or on the Wookieepedia:Article requests page.
8. Jaina Solo^{(Goddess Stuff)} 25px 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Obviously we'd check the history first to see if there's a non-copyvio version. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

   And we may even rewrite it as a minimal stub rather than delete. Maybe a time limit will serve to encourage us to rewrite the articles quickly...—Silly Dan _(talk) 22:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete it after two weeks?Edit

Same as above, but with more time supplied to fix the problem.

1. I'm going to be different and say give them more time to rewrite rather than blasting away. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Per Riffsyphon1024. —Mirlen 02:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
3. SFH 03:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete it after a month?Edit

Same as above, but with more time supplied to fix the problem.

Keep it around until it is fixedEdit

1. Kuralyov 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
2. We don't want to risk losing an article topic. Adamwankenobi 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Sulgran 02:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• I would give it a fortnight. Rewriting a whole article within a week is more complicated than one would think. But seeing how fast improvements are made in Wookieepdia, perhaps a week is sufficient. —Mirlen 00:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, nothing stops you from starting an article anew if it's been deleted as a copyvio. The main reason to delete them is to change them back into "wanted" articles. —Silly Dan _(talk) 00:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • True, but I prefer to giving articles a chance (i.e. rewritten) as opposed to "blasting it away," to quote Riffsyphon1024. —Mirlen 02:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The thing is, either way there's no article there to rewrite. It's either a redlink, or a big copyvio boilerplate. jSarek 06:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the nature of the suspected violation is important. Is the entire article a lift? Just a paragraph? Just a few words? When I encounter articles that are clear copyright violations, I remove the offensive portion and note the contributor. If the entire article is a copy/paste, I'll replace it with a short stub, note the contributor and note it on the discussion page. I find this is MUCH easier than the unecessary bureacracy of a copyvio page. In the time it takes you to add the template, create the copyvio report and related page, you could have just solved the problem and saved everyone some trouble. My two credits. --SparqMan 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree: which is why I made an automatically updated list on WP:COPY, rewrote the instructions on the template so the temp page step was optional, and specifically mentioned to possibility of reverting to a non-violating version. As for rewriting: think of {{copyvio}} as akin to {{cleanup}}. It's a template you can slap on a page that needs to be fixed when you don't have the time, energy, or expertise to fix it yourself. —Silly Dan _(talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The difference being that slapping {{cleanup}} on a page and running is referencing a problem which is a nuisance at best. A page with a copyright violation is a threat to Wookieepedia. Lucasfilm has been extremely loose with the usage of its images on the Internet, but a little legal attention and a CAD letter to Angela would be Wookieepedia in the web graveyard. Sure I'm being dramatic, but it's so easy to replace a copied article with a simple stub. If a user paste's Han Solo's entry from one of the Guide to Characters over his page, it could easily be replaced with, "Han Solo was a Corellian smuggler who played a vital role in the Rebel Alliance's victories against the Galactic Empire and the subsequent struggles of the New Republic and Galactic Alliance." I think we're on the same page though, Silly Dan, and the automation certainly makes everything easier. --SparqMan 19:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• In most cases they are copied from a CUSWE article, and I don't think Lucasfilm would care about those. I noticed on some pages with copyright violations have the tag posted above the text. Wouldn't that still be in violation?--Lord Oblivion^{Sith holocron} 19:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the violating text should be removed as well: if you see any articles like that, remove the text. Of course, you can also rewrite it: however, in the past, I've put up the copyvio template on a page I genuinely did not have time to write a sensible two-sentence article for, like in cases where I checked the recent changes during a ten-minute break from something else. It's also possible for someone to copy and paste from CUSWE or the Databank more quickly than a conscientious user can rewrite the articles. You're also correct that other fansites are copied more often than Lucasfilm sources: fansites are less likely to sue us out of existence, but stealing from them is just as likely to harm Wookieepedia's reputation. —Silly Dan _(talk) 20:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)