Template talk:Copyvio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Instructions: {{copyvio|url=www.somethingwasrippedfromhere.com}}

Separate multiple URL's with a space.

[edit] Re-wording and automation

I've re-worked the current template. Why? It conveyed all of the essential information, but in a reader-unfriendly format. The same information is presented in a better format here: User:Feco/Templates/copyvioDRAFT.

The current, live template also confuses editors who flag articles as copyvios... the current text makes it seem that the pages are automatically added to WP:CP. This is not the case! I added a notice at the top of my draft template to make it clear that copyvios must be manually added to WP:CP.

In a perfect world, there would be a mechanism that automatically adds new copyvios to the WP:CP. I don't know if that's possible, but I tried to design my tempate to capture the necessary data that could be auto-added to WP:CP.

Also, I'm not sure about some of the date-stamp functionality if/when this template is transferred from my user space to the template space. Someone with more knowledge of wiki coding might need to tweak/add/delete to correct any mistakes I've made.

Please take a look at User:Feco/Templates/copyvioDRAFT and tell me what you think. Feco 01:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Feco. I've seen instances where editors posting copyvio material have pulled off the copyvio notice without even reading it. The instructions are much clearer now, for all parties. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Feco, I think your new template is fine. Some suggestions...

Reduce the numbers of words wherever possible to help clarity. It should be noted that the can be removed from the second to last bullet, for example.
Is there a way to make the this temporary subpage link more inviting? I'm thinking positioning and possibly text style --Duk 18:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revisions made per users' suggestions. Can someone with knowledge of wiki automation review to verify that the arguments (url, text, comment) and functions (using subst function to get "static" dates) will work? Feco 19:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another suggestion, place a note on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems soliciting comments--Duk 20:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam vandalism?

This template is great, but it doesn't address the problem of people who just use copyvio as a form of spam vandalism. If we use this template, we'll still be creating a link to their page, which will still help these vandals increase their pagerank. Can we modify this template somehow so that it doesn't actually create a link to the offending url? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:32, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

The page get's deleted in a week or so. (Assuming it is vandalism) so I don't think this is a major issue. JesseW 07:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, it is a significant issue. With the correct timing, that week-long window makes for quite effective Googlebombing. However, being able to do things such as {{copyvio|url=ISBN 00000000000}} is quite useful. The easy way to neuter advertising hyperlinks, which doesn't involve modifying this template, is given at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

[edit] Format

I've made some changes to this... OvenFresh ☺ 21:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but I made other changes. violet/riga (t) 11:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this?

User:Vague Rant/Copyvio

Vague | Rant 09:22, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I quite like the strength of it, but don't really like the border. This is mainly because when signing it the signature appears outside of the border and doesn't quite look right. violet/riga (t) 11:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like that quite a bit. Although maybe with a #f8fcff background. OvenFresh ☺ 22:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about now? Same link, but I've fiddled with it a little. Kind of ugly markup, but the Wiki is smart enough to close the table if I leave off the end. So you can sign it, and it will sit inside the border, and then it will close. The only thing is, I believe that Category:Possible copyright violations will appear within the border, which may bother some. - Vague | Rant 11:49, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Looks good to me. violet/riga (t) 11:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like it! —OvenFresh ☺ 02:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History link broken

On articles with two-word titles, the "history link" link doesn't work, because a space goes in the URL. Everything before that space becomes the link target, and everything after it goes in the text. Is there a way to fix this? Right now the link is not only ugly but nonfunctional. —Etaoin 01:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not think it can be fixed and thus I removed it. OvenFresh ☺ 02:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Table Closed

I've closed the table for the copyvio template because it distorts several pages. There is the option to make a another {{{1}}} thing so you could type {{copyvio|url=something|~~~~}} but a lot of people would not like that, so we could create a new signature template for copyvios with that included. For example: User:Oven Fresh/copyvio which when used would look like User:Oven Fresh/copyvio/Temp. —OvenFresh ☺ 18:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've made it. Template:cvs. So... {{cvs|url=example.com|~~~~}} ! —OvenFresh ☺ 18:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having the table closed, of course, makes the signature appear outside the border, which could also be considered as "distorting" pages. What pages are you referring to? Since this template is always used the same way ( {{copyvio|url=...}} ~~~~ ), all pages should look the same, shouldn't they? Brianjd 06:47, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Tutorial pages and partial copyright violation pages are effected. The template:cvs table closes, but it has a {{{2}}} near the end, in which your signature can be placed. So <nowiki> {{cvs|http://google.com/whatever/|~~~~}} would close the table and keep your signature within the table. —OvenFresh ☺ 17:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bad color choice?

Is it me or are the (linked) words "copyright infringement" at the top of the template all but unreadable, being dark blue on a black background? (This is true for me in IE 5.5 & 6.0, as well as Netscape 4.79 & 6.2.) - dcljr 23:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was a workaround placed there but it wasn't working. I've changed it slightly now and think it's better. violet/riga (t) 00:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prominent link to /Temp page

171.64.66.154's edit of 22:52, 15 Feb 2005, summarised as "reorganize, since people keep putting comments on the temp page", has completely de-emphasised the link to the /Temp page. Has anyone else found it to be true that people were putting comments on /Temp pages? I don't recall a big problem with that, and I was looking at a lot of week-old copyvios, but then maybe RC patrol was deleting them all. I'd rather have the big link (Rewrite article at: [[{{PAGENAME}}/Temp]]) back, myself. --rbrwr ^± 22:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changing wording of notice

Can we change the wording of the notice to remind whomever flags something copyvio that they must manually post a link on WP:CP? I have found many, many users who flag things copyvio, but assume the squiggle-bracket function automatically posts the article to WP:CP. The current text of the notice even states that the article is "now posted to" WP:CP. Feco 21:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Square brackets bug-1951

There is no way of "escaping" square brackets in a URL. You have to replace "[" by "%5B" and "]" by "%5D". This has been recorded as bug 1951 in the bug recordng system for MediaWiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Order of info in box

I looked thru this talk page (but didn't look for any archives) before making these changes. I rearranged things slightly and added a tiny clarification (I agree that it shouldn't be wordy, but we lost a little info that made the thing make more sense). Most important things are that one must not edit THIS article and that if you have the copyright or permission, you should let us know. Elf | Talk 17:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Policy link

Should this link directly to Wikipedia:Copyright#Contributors' rights and obligations? Bovlb 23:55:59, 2005-07-19 (UTC)

[edit] adding the URL parameter instructions

i learned the hard way that { {copyvio|url=www.somethingwasrippedfromhere.com} } is the actual correct way to link to the offended URL. is this common sense or are there instructions somewhere that explains the URL parameter? if not, if I modify the main template page, will that affect the template code itself? say if I modified it outside ofthe { } brackets. i already screwed the template up once so i don't want to do it again... -- Bubbachuck 06:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC).

If you look at the template, where the URL should go, it says {{{url}}}, which kinda hints at a URL parameter. also, there are <nowiki> tags, so you don't have to do the { {copyvio} } thing. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] subst:the date?

Any objection to subst:ing the parts of the date? At the moment, the link on each copyvio'd page changes each day. Or should I be subst:ing the whole template? I had thought not since "what links here" is probably useful in this case. -Splash 00:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Should we subst: the whole template? I used it and did not. Some clarification from someone wiser then I would help. Scottanon 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, answered my own question, sort of. Wikipedia:Template substitution clearly states that {{copyvio}} SHOULD be subst:ed. So I'll fix mine. Scottanon 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a mistake on WP:SUBST's part. The template should not be substed. There's far too much wikicode and substing it would break a bot that relies upon it, and remove the convenience of the deletion summary. Sorry, you've been mislead. -Splash^talk

Okay, I'll fix it right this time. Thanks Scottanon 03:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistakes

Shouldn't the template mention what to do when the copyvio template is added in error? Mrs Beeton got slapped with a copyvio template, even though it's obvious that they copied us, but the template offers nowhere to point that out.--Prosfilaes 02:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added a note about this. It could use a better wording, however. Wcquidditch | Talk 23:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added warning not to just modify it

After the link to the temporary page, I added:

Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright violation — it is best to write the article from scratch.

I had a recent experience with a new user who was blocked after repeatedly reintroducing copyrighted content. It turned out they were slightly altering it under the mistaken belief that this made it not a copyvio. I hope this helps prevent this in the future. Deco 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not From URL

What if the source of the copied material is not on the web with a URL, such as the song lyrics in this topic? What's the best way to have the content administratively removed from Wikipedia? -- Mikeblas 22:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In a case like this I would normally just remove the offending material. If you want the old revision removed, I'm not sure exactly what the best forum for that is. If you want to use the copyvio template, you can specify the source in any manner you like, such as:

And so on. I find copyvios from sources such as these are considerably more infrequent however, as they require substantially more effort. Deco 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I just trimmed the lyrics from the page. -- Mikeblas 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User warning template

You can use:
{{subst:cv}}
as a standard warning to users who upload copyrighted material. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: The preferred templates are {{uw-copyright1}} through {{uw-copyright4}}, which start out much gentler than {{cv}} (no immediate threats of blocking to scare the newbies) and wind up much sterner (with the usual "this is your last warning" message). Since the uw templates are available, {{cv}} really should never be used anymore. --Quuxplusone 02:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, only two warnings would ever be appropriate, the first explaining politely that they cannot copy material without explicit permission, and the second telling them they will be blocked for it. If someone has violated copyright three times after being told twice not to do it, they must be blocked; Wikipedia is not a venue for allowing repeated illegal actions. —Centrx→talk • 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary page location

Since we no longer use /'s for subpages in main space, should the temporary article link be changed to "Talk:Article/Temp"?--ragesoss 14:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

what's changed recently that we shouldn't rewrite copyvios at /Temp? --Duk 17:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

What's changed is that /'s no longer make a subpage. So rather than Article/Temp being a subpage of Article, it's just a new article with a slash in the title. See Wikipedia:Subpages. I'm going to change the template accordingly.--ragesoss 18:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this broke the existing copyvio pages. See Nevada State Route 171 as an example, as the temp page was Nevada State Route 171/Temp. The temp pages therefore have to be moved. --Geopgeop 09:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Aaarggh, this could, potentially, be a bit of a significant issue. When deleting articles I personally just skim read the template and if the temp page link is red presume there is no replacement article. However, once the template was changed the link would have showed red if a replacement page had been created at the old location (ie. article/temp). This means, there may be /Temp articles floating around that should have been used as replacements but have now been cast adrift. I've put a note on the copyvio page and talk page highlighting this to admins and asking them to ensure that they check both possible locations for a replacement. The issue will percolate out of the system once any articles that had been tagged with the older template have been deleted/had the template removed, so this issue only applies to articles tagged prior to 18:37 on 4 June 2006. People, please be careful when editing this template. Is there any merit in protecting this template to ensure people carefully consider any edits? This is a very widely used, and very important, template that is not subst'd and so prone to any changes. Kcordina ^Talk 10:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. Pseudo-subpage have been like this for ages. I will revert this change unless someone has an exceptionally good reason for changing something that isn't broken. Somebody has just gotten confused in reading Wikipedia:Subpages, which has made clear for a long time that articlespace subpages are disabled on enwiki.-Splash - tk 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Since February. Not too recent, but recent by the standards of the discussion on this page. But this template should have been changed back then anyway. Since temporary pages are supposed to be in talk space, I see no reason why we should keep the copyvio temp pages in article space. Anyway, it should be a non-issue once the current crop is through (which should be in just a few more days).--ragesoss 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. The history of Wikipedia:Subpages indicates that it's been disabled in article space very much longer than that. The earliest revision that makes explicit the disabling is from March 2004 indicates that "The MediaWiki software still supports the creation of subpages in certain namespaces, such as the User, Talk, and Wikipedia namespaces, but subpages cannot be created in the main encyclopedia". -Splash - tk 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing it back again is going to extend the length of the problem period as then the problem will exist the other way round. It doesn't really matter where they live, so lets just leave it as it is now and all will be well. Anyone know of an easy way to hunt out any Temp pages that may have been missed when deleting copyvios? Kcordina ^Talk 08:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Uesr:Splash has changed the template back to how it was, which means the problem now exists in both directions - articles saying the replacement is at Article/Temp, when it's actually at Talk:Article/Temp, and vice versa. Keep your eyes open when deleting copyvios please folks otherwise things are going to fall through the cracks. Please don't change this template again until we settle on where they pages should go. Kcordina ^Talk 08:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It makes better sense to have about 2 days of dodgy /Temp links than 2+ weeks. There are, say, 100 CV's in two days. From experience, less than 10% of those will have a rewrite on a /Temp page of any kind, and so the loss is minimal. There is no obvious way to locate a /Temp page, but the instructions do ask that the editor mention the fact on the usual talk page. I always check that if the link to talk is blue. Sometimes, there's an outside chance that when you check Special:Whatlinkshere, you might discover it then. -Splash - tk 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I got confused about the recent back and forth with the intro to Wikipedia:Subpages. Sorry about the hasty change. Still, this template should have been changed in 2004, and it still should be changed. The existing pages can be moved. If it's that big of a chore, we can hold off and get someone to run a bot for it, but sooner or later it should happen.--ragesoss 11:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The article replacement should be at Article/Temp (not Talk:Article/Temp) in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Alternatives_to_deletion.--Burzum 07:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The main namespace does not and should not have subpages. Having the temporary subpage at the location linked in this template is more appropriate. I have changed the text at the Copyright problems page. —Centrx→talk • 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A possible migration strategy

I was thinking about this and I reached the conclusion that I do agree that the psuedo-subpage approach should be phased out. Principally, this is because such 'sub'pages can be reach via Special:Randompage and the appearance of /Temp in the article title in such cases is clearly undesirable. However, this is fairly minor given the ration of the number of such pages to the total number of articles. That said, it would be cleaner and more technically consistent to make the /Temp page subordinate to Talk:.

So, we could make a new copyvio template at some convenient name, with the subpage link to Talk:/Temp, and replace the instructions with that. Announce the change fairly widely, and it will be picked up. Then, after some time, all uses of the old {{copyvio}} will be resolved one way or anohter, and we can swap the new one into its place, and either delete the old one (best way to prevent resurfacing) or move it somewhere non-obvious in case of existing usages that got missed. -Splash - tk 14:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't a simpler way be to change the link on the template, and then insert a note somewhere on the template saying something like Administrators - This template has recently been amended and the link above may not point to the correct location of a replacement article; please also check at articlename/Temp for a replacement article. Kcordina ^Talk 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is suboptimal for exactly the reasons in the section above: it breaks all existing links, and admins simply won't check properly before deleting. I mean, what admin bothers to read the text of the template itself before deleting, or, for that matter, is likely to notice a new bullet point in instructions they read ages ago? -Splash - tk 15:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we start moving all the existing pages to talk; the links will still work because it will retain a redirect. Then, once all pages have been moved, we can change the template, and optionally delete the redirects (although they won't matter for randompage).--ragesoss 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to manually go through the 300-odd copyvios we currently have to find the ones with /Temp pages. -Splash - tk 19:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't need to go through and read the whole template - all the admin would need to do is skim read read two links to see if they're red, rather than skim read one link, as hopefully everyone does at the moment. Kcordina ^Talk 08:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it back to the talk space links. I moved or redirected all the existing temp pages, so now the talk space links don't break anything.--ragesoss 02:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done - top stuff. Kcordina ^Talk 08:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of sections

It seems a little distracting to have procedural instructions for the template user ("If you have just labeled this page...") at the top of the template. How do people feel about moving this section to the bottom of the template, or at least below the "main" section ("The previous content of this page appears to infringe...")? I know it's convenient for those of us who use this template frequently to have that stuff up there, but it seems potentially disorienting for new users, and placing it a little lower would place little burden on template users. Thoughts? —Caesura ^(t) 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No one objected, so I did it. Maybe we'll hear some objections now. —Caesura ^(t) 23:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, when you do it, then you get responses. :) I liked the old way better, it was faster. I didn't had to scroll down to the bottom of the page every time. Especially since this template is more for editors than for readers anyway, considering it's only on there for a a couple of days until it gets deleted. But why would it be disorienting for new users? For new users who labeled the article, it was easier to see what to do. For new users who simply see the template when looking up an article, know that they don't have to do anything since they haven't done the tagging. Garion96 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For the (usually brand new) user who created the article, it seems better to have an explanation at the top of the template rather than instructions that have nothing to do with them. How do you feel about a compromise of putting the procedural instructions somewhere in the middle of the template (say, below the "The previous content of this page..." section and above the numbered section), so that it's above the fold for us but won't be the first thing people unfamiliar with the template read? (Obvious disadvantage: this breaks up the main text of the template.) If you don't like this compromise, you can just revert the change; I'm not that attached to it. —Caesura ^(t) 02:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you're not that attached to it, I reverted it. If there is another way great. But breaking up the text is also not good, since it's quite important for editors who created the article to read the whole text without having the risk they might stop halfway. If you think of another way, please let me know or just edit the template and I will know that way. :) Garion96 (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with a URL

Trying to use this template with http://www.music.org.za/artist.asp?id=178 as {{copyvio|http://www.music.org.za/artist.asp?id=178}} fails to accept the URL. I had to use it as {{copyvio|url=http://www.music.org.za/artist.asp?id=178}}. I am not completely sure why this is happening, but maybe adding a nowiki tag to the {{{1}}} parameter may solve it. -- ReyBrujo 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is the presence of an = sign confusing the parser. The existence of the {{{url}}} parameter is intended to fix the problem, as you discovered. -Splash - tk 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dated categories

After receiving no response on the Administrator's noticeboard and on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, I was going to try and figure out how to do dated categories for this. I was going to make the change as minimal as possible using pipes for category sections, but this is not feasible because piping in a category only takes the first letter after the pipe. Therefore, this requires assistance from a bot, presumably either the on that already does PROD, User:DumbBOT, or the one that does creation and archiving for Wikipedia:Copyright problems, User:Zorglbot. The proposed template would work in the same way as Template:Prod, with a {{subst:copyvio}} resulting in a {{dated copyvio}}. A non-subst'ed {{copyvio}} would work the same as it does not, but it would put them in an "undated" category. I noticed above a mention of a bot that currently parses teh copyvio templates, is this still true? If it is referring to a bot that listed pages in that category on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, it looks as though that doesn't happen anymore. —Centrx→talk • 07:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the change, and it is backward compatible to be functionally identical when {{copyvio}} is not subst'ed and to put it in a dated category when it is subst'ituted. You may note a slight discrepancy in formatting, but this was all I could do to make it work like Template:Prod without having a lot of errant text. After the category bot, User:DumbBOT, is set up, I think it would be appropriate to have a short message about subst'ing when it is not. —Centrx→talk • 06:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what is the point of this? Other than feeding a bot... -Splash - tk 13:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are over 1000 copyvios in CAT:CP, and it appears to be growing fairly fast. Having them sorted by date means that the oldest ones can be dealt with first. Currently, it is hit and miss to go through this category, because half the ones you click on will be more recent than 7 days, and in nearly all cases, there is nothing to do about it. This is less productive and is discouraging to someone going through the category. Conversely, among this 1000+, there remain copyvios that lay there for weeks, with no one checking on them. Unlike CAT:CSD, which can be brought down to 0 entries because it has no delay, this is more like CAT:PROD, which has dated categories.

Having dated categories means that an older copyvio is deleted before a newer one, and an older claim is followed up before a newer claim. I also made it backward compatible, anyone can still use {{copyvio}} without subst and it will work the same. With your consideration, I might add a small note informing the user to substitute it. —Centrx→talk • 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what Wikipedia:Copyright problems is for. They are all ordered in different date pages there. And sometimes someone comments on an article there, which an admin would miss otherwise. Garion96 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, read the above comments not carefully enough. But still not convinced it's necessary. There are not that many copyvio's. (well there are) but not that many articles with this template tagged on. Garion96 (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The same script run you can find at the bottom of 2006-07-25 that found 1082 copyvios, found only about 480 at the beginning of July.

I don't think this is necessary and have two slight concerns;

If an inexperienced admin tried to resolve the oldest copyvios by looking in the proposed dated category (and failed to read all the comments at WP:CP) it could be a real disaster. It's the oldest listings that are the most difficult to resolve. Much better to see a chronological listing of copyvios by looking at WP:CP.
Say a page is tagged as a copyvio for a month but isn't listed at WP:CP, once it finally gets listed it needs to stay listed for the seven day period. A dated category would misrepresent its status. (I run a script from time to time that finds these unlisted pages and adds them to WP:CP). The seven day listing period for comments really makes a difference. Some false taggings are found, some permissions are solicited and obtained, and the discussion educates admins and editors about copyrights.--Duk 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it getting through them though? The same script run at the bottom of 2006-07-25 that found 1082 copyvios in the category, found only about 480 at the beginning of July. Is someone e-mailing a thousand websites? The vast majority of entries on WP:CP have no discussion at all. If a copyvio has a claim or is under discussion, can't it just be taken out of the dated category? Can we not warning instructions on the header to the category? —Centrx→talk • 02:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems entirely reasonable that in 25 days some 600 copyvios (net) should be added to the list. How would the removal from the dated category work? This would just seem likely to create another crack in the process (or alternatively a backlog!) of pages that hadn't been removed but did have discussion. Add a warning about what? In any case, people don't read warnings; they just dive in. -Splash - tk 02:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The point was that they would just keep being added, that it would be double that or more in 50 days. If, as stated below, this is just fluctuation, that makes more sense, but that still wouldn't mean it would keep scaling, or explain why several articles that are almost speedy deletion candidates should remain for 3 weeks. If a page has discussion and isn't moved to an alternate category, this is still the miniscule minority of cases out of a small minority of articles with discussion. I don't see why clear instructions wouldn't be helpful, and I don't see how the current process prevents a headlong administrator from deleting copyvios without carefully checking their situation. —Centrx→talk • 06:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is it getting through them though? - yes. The backlog fluctuates depending on the admins working the page. Generally, one or more admins will clear out the backlog and keep the page up to date for a month or two. Then they get burned out and the backlog goes up again until a few new admins step in. These fluctuations have been the norm ever since I've watched the listing page- about a year and a half. Currently they fluctuate between about 500 and 1500. There is no magic way to get these listings to disappear, people have to do the work of reviewing them.
The vast majority of entries on WP:CP have no discussion at all - The older listings have a lot of discussion.
If a copyvio has a claim or is under discussion, can't it just be taken out of the dated category? Can we not [add] warning instructions on the header to the category? - I really don't see any improvement here, you still need to go and look at the discussions when resolving copyvios. While most listings won't have any discussion, some will. Having different categories for listing with and without discussions won't change anything, they all still need to be reviewed. --Duk 05:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If you mean listings that are now archived, why was there more discussion then and almost none now? If you mean old listings that remain on the page, the older listings have discussion because those are the ones that were not already deleted; most all of them still get resolved without discussion. If a copyvio is in a dated category—rather than a pending discussion category—for two weeks ago, has no clean history and no claim on its Talk page, why can it not just be deleted? How are these not the vast majority of cases? —Centrx→talk • 06:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the vast majority of the cases don't have discussion and can be deleted after the listing period ... and after being reviewed. I completely agree with you on this point. However, adding new categories based on dates and whether listings have discussion or not won't help the review process at all, it'll just add more categories. All listings need to be individually reviewed regardless of what hypothetical category they are in. Adding more categories won't make reviewing the listings any easier, it's feature creep. And I still have the (minor) concerns listed above. --Duk 23:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Less prominent version?

Could we have a template version that is less prominent, for cases where a reporter is truly unsure if copyright has bee violated and he doesn't want to add such a bold gigantic statement?

I'm in this situation right now because Simultaneous brightness contrast looks a lot like [1], but I would like to attract experts on the subject. I like the article and I don't want to basically "kill" it with a huge warning label, just based on my opinion, without any expert advice. A small "possible copyright violation" banner that also adds the article to the relevant category would be perfect for this task.

So - could we have an alternative smaller version of the template for those cases? Peter S. 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

That particular case is clearly a copyvio. But in instances where a small amount of text has been copied, or other truly minor examples, then the answer would be to either remove the material or inquire on the talk page. -Will Beback 22:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But... the talk page solutions has two problems:

Talk pages are not regularly visited, therefore such a page could exist for a long time
Banner-Templates also allow the wikipedia community to do a more fine-grained workflow, where people can just add a little info very quickly and somebody else takes it from there. Like "needs expert attention": added in a few seconds, and later an expert goes through that list and does his thing. Having such a banner for copyvio would be very advantageous as well.

Do you agree that such a smaller banner would be a good idea? Peter S.

Yes, I agree. A smaller banner would be a good idea. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Strictly as a proposal, I have created the {{PotentialCopyvio}} template (though "PossibleCopyvio" may be a better name). I have not yet added the new template to any instruction pages or anything like that, as this is purely a proposal. Please review the design, make any needed improvements, and leave comments on the talk page there. Kickaha Ota 00:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seems like wrong warning template to give at bottom

"Maintenance use only: {{subst:nothanks-sd|pg=Template:Copyvio|url={{{url}}}}} ~~~~" Seems incorrect for this template, as that says it is being speedied, but this ({{Copyvio}}) is not the template that would be used, were it a speedy. It seems it should be changed to {{subst:nothanks|(pagehere)}} ~~~~. Or am I misunderstanding what "maintenance use" it is referring to, as I assumed that was to help people just copy that onto the creator's talk page. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I have changed to Template:Nothanks. —Centrx→talk • 21:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um...

Dosent this template that takes up a full screen of text seem overly obnoxious to anyone else? 72.2.21.73

No. A substantial amount of information is necessary. Please stop replacing it with a different (and inapplicaple) template. --Robth^Talk 06:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why not provide a link like every other template, why should copyvio be any different?

Because copyvio should be used only on blanked pages, where the only thing for readers to see, and the only thing we want readers to see, is the instructions about how to deal with a copyvio or prove ownership. --Robth^Talk 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preface v. replace

I have noticed that some pages that only contain content supsected of copyrighted infrigement are tagged as possible copyright violations but continue to include the questionable content. Wikipedia:Copyright violations states that

"If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there."

I think that we should include a notice to editors/taggers to replace the page with the tag (if all the content is a possible copyright violation) rather than merely preface the page with the tag. --Iamunknown 07:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the template says "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing." (emphasis added) This implies that the text is to remain on the page, which is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. I would like to be bold, but am too cowardly to change such a prominent and official template. --Iamunknown 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem.

When using the URL= parameter, the text for inclusion on the copyright problems list does not come up properly. One gets

* {{subst:article-cv|article-name}} from [Notice given at Wikipedia:Copyright problems]. ~~~~

A link to the url appears in the displayed text of the template, but not in the text for cut and paste into the copyright problems listing.--Srleffler 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This was a temporary error due to an edit that was quickly reverted. —Centrx→talk • 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate of {{Copyright}}?

This appears to have the exact same content as {{Copyright}}, so why do we have both?--RyanB88 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

{{Copyright}} is just a redirect to here. —Centrx→talk • 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/p/Template_talk%7ECopyvio_15dc.html"