Talk:Batplane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (publisher): DC Comics work group

I trimmed out some of the less encyclopedic comments. Still needs a little work, but at least it doesn't read like a fanpage anymore. --Noclevername (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

The following two edits were purely the insertion of copyvio: [1] [2]. Accordingly, we cannot use any material from those edits, nor can we use any material that was substantially derived from those edits - i.e. if somebody added a paragraph to the "Batplane V" section we need to be very careful there, as that paragraph could be treated as a derivative work of the copyvio work. That's why I've rolled back to before the copyvio was added. Make *absolutely* sure that nothing you re-add was in any way derived from [3].

Yes, this effectively guts the article in a really unfortunate way, but unfortunately, that is what has to happen when we allow an article to be built on copyvio material. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What, precisely, was wrong with the re-edited version I put back in..? The cited reason from User:J Greb is "when the qouted passages 1) Are not treated as quotes, 2) are large, or entire, sections from the source, & 3) the only thing in the section."

So, "1" - The only reference "not treated as a quote" was about the Caproni jet and Messerschmitt Me 163, which User:Phil Sandifer (above) doubts as a source, apparently due to it's non-professional-ness. Hence the qualifying comment about where such information derived, even though the picture-sources with that information made the point quite well.

"2" - Surely the reason for the references being large is twofold, one accurate; one inaccurate. Firstly, since "original research" isn't allowed, assertions must be referenced. Secondly, a brief summary of the stories will necessarily echo someone else's brief summary, since they're summaries of the same work.

"3" - Again, Original Research largely procludes a user from adding anything that isn't mentioned somewhere, and since "Alternate versions of the Batplane" isn't that common a topic to be described in many places, the source which does talk about them will necessarily be the main/only one used in such a section.

I'm not especially bothered if the section stays gone, but I can't quite follow the logic of branding it in violation of copright. ntnon (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It falls along the line of how much of it is exact cut and paste. The original reason Phil gutted the article is that most of the web site, and it's sub pages, he pointed to was copied verbatim into the article. There was no attempt to trim or paraphrase, just plagiarize.

The nuts and bolts are that the material can be used if it's reduced. And, better still, if there is a second source an editor can pull from. The referencing will point a reader to the full information on that web site. An example of this is the Cockrum material. The refed site reads as though the author there was pulling information from an interview with Cockrum. Finding that source would an editor to write a fresh passage here, or at the least directly cite the interview.

As for story summaries echoing is one thing, yes two people summarizing the same story should result in similar texts, but identical or nearly identical is another.

- J Greb (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I got the impression that the Cockrum quote is from a personal interview by the individual whose website it is on, which would make alternate citation difficult. ntnon (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright?

Just for your information, the more detailed history that was rolled back to the current version did indeed come largely from the website at "Ourworlds". I was the editor who added that material and I'm also the owner of the website from which it was taken. As I see it, it was my information to add and it was not a copyright violation. I suppose there is some way of marking material to indicate that it is contributed by the copyright holder but I didn't see it. Anyway, it doesn't matter. I think the longer history was better but it's still available on my site. Also, the quote from Dave Cockrum wasn't from an interview, it was from personal correspondence, so I don't know of any way to make an alternate citation, either. Blackhawk66 (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)