Template talk:Db-g12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2007 October 23. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep.

Contents

[edit] Usage

{{db-copyvio|url=SOURCEURL}}

  • SOURCEURL should be the full URL of the source from which the content was taken. It will be used in an external link, so it should be the full URL, including "http://".
  • NOTE if the URL contains the characters = or ?, you must use the named parameter ("url=..."), as the positional parameter syntax ({{db-copyvio|SOURCEURL}}) will not work in that case.

[edit] Note

Note that this cannot be constructed in the recently-instituted manner of the other db- templates (as {db-reason|reason} between includeonly tags) owing to the need for a parameter. -Splashtalk 02:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Also note that this template is not identical to the {{db}} template: at the bottom, it includes a directive for administrators to verify if the author of the article has been notified of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Titoxd 02:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The current wording of the template states that the unauthorized content is from a commercial provider. The word "commercial" refers to endeavors that are used to make money; however, unauthorized copies posted to Wikipedia are not necessarily from commercial sites. Content that is not permitted to be copied in certain manners, but which may or may not actually be commercial in nature, might be more properly referred to as "proprietary". Should the wording be changed?

No, because this template is only intended for such commercial providers. All other copyright problems should be blanked with {{copyvio}} instead and listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. They sit there for a week to give someone the opportunity to grant permission. Things tagged with this tag are intended to be those we are virtually certain not to get permission for. -Splashtalk 17:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Signed comment edited by non-author: change "copyvo" to "copyvio"

[edit] Placed/named parameters

The template syntax breaks when a url contains an equals sign: for example, the url in {{db-copyvio | http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cat}} expands to "{{{1}}}", exactly as if no parameter had been specified at all. While the problem can be worked around by using {{db-copyvio | 1=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cat}}, this is confusing to document and generally cryptic. I therefore propose that this be changed to a named url= parameter, as in {{copyvio}}, which will avoid the issue entirely; it's certainly a better solution than adding a little "If the url you wish to reference contains a =, please use this format instead:" subtitle to every place that mentions this template. —Cryptic (talk) 03:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

If that will solve the problem, be BOLD and go for it. Just try to make a note of that where the template is mentioned, if you consider it necessary. Titoxd(?!?) 05:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Although this fixes issues, it makes it more hard to use in my view, and means to does not follow the standard, used in db. I think it should be changed back - or maybe a note added asking users to use 1= in the case of odd URLs, or encode their URL in address standard (not sure what = is, but for example ' ' is %20;). Ian13 18:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Why not have it work like the regular copyvio tag and just do {{db-copyvio|http://foo.com}}? Peyna 21:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I've made the parameter name optional, like in {{copyvio}}. (We didn't have default parameters when this was discussed in October, so this wasn't possible then.) Now, either way works. —Cryptic (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please read Template talk:Db-reason before editing.

If you are contemplating editing this template, especially with regards to categorization or parameters, please read the discussion at Template talk:Db-reason.

{{db-reason}} is the meta-template from which all these templates derive, and is also used for CSD in its own right. Some of the other CSD templates are also used both as meta-templates, and as templates in their own right. Because of this, the relationship between these templates, their parameters, and the issue of categorization (so that candiate articles get categorized, but the templates temselves don't) is more complex that it appears at first glance. The discussion on Template talk:Db-reason should elucidate some of these issues. Jamie (talk/contribs) 04:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not working properly?

db-copyvio is appearing as the plain old db template on Phalia. Anyone else having this problem? -- Avocado 17:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure am. I am having the same problem and I though it was me.--Esprit15d 16:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(Example removed. —Pathoschild 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

It seems to be working fine. —Pathoschild 21:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble at Inscrutable Americans. WTF, mates? Melchoir 12:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The equals sign seems to be causing a problem with the meta-template; I'll address the issue immediately. Thanks for pointing this out. —Pathoschild 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem has been fixed. —Pathoschild 17:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with URLs

I've run into the same problem a couple of times lately where the template has a problem with long URLs like this one. Instead of the usual notice, it says "...from the website of a commercial content provider: {{{url}}}, with no assertion...". I'm not sure if this is an issue with the length of the URL, the syntax, or something else. Does anyone know what's going on? --DMG413 01:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This keeps coming up. It appears to be an issue with the syntax, specifically with the use of the =' in the URL. I still don't know how to fix it (or if it can be fixed), though. --DMG413 19:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why 48 hours?

I need some help with the 48 hour aspect of this. I just noticed that this Country Radio Broadcasters, Inc. article is identical to this [1] site. It is older than 48 hours though, it dates from 17:46, 24 August 2006. It should still be deleted under A8, right? DVD+ R/W 02:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Note, the copyvio has now been surgically removed and the article is beginning to be rewritten. I would like to hear other opinions on why there is a 48 hour requirement though, when it isn't a mirrored site. DVD+ R/W 03:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] another problem with url

Here's an example of a URL that doesn't work:

{{db-g12|1=http://thelibrary.org/booklist/titles_jackets.cfm?catid=577}}

Seems the question mark breaks it. — coelacan — 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to work fine with the "1=" before it. Is there a non-obvious problem? -Amarkov moo! 22:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] uw template

{{uw-copyright}} was modified to have roughly the same behaviour than {{nothanks-sd}}. Namely, {{subst:uw-copyright|Article|url=http://www.google.com}} shows the same message. What do you think about changing the template to use the shiny uw- one? -- lucasbfr talk 14:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix for URL problem

Folks, if you use the format {{db-copyvio|url=http://url}}, the template will properly parse those long URLs. Include url=. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] uw-copyright vs nothanks-sd

A significant different between these templates is that nothanks-sd automatically leaves a nice heading to make the note stand out, but uw-copyright does not. As a result, uw-copyright turns the user's talk page into a jumble.

If I knew how to make the uw-copyright template leave a heading, I'd do it myself, but I'm not that good. So I've switched db-copyvio back to nothanks-sd for now. If a template savvy editor would upgrade uw-copyright to produce a heading, I wouldn't care which warning was left by db-copyvio.

Thanks! --Butseriouslyfolks 19:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind the WP:UW was to get rid of all headers. Personally I prefer not having these at the top of warnings. But I understand your point, and this template being very long, we could use {{subst:AntiVandal|Article|uw-copyright|3=url=http://whatever.com}}~~~~ if you prefer (example after the paragraph). But the only issue is that the syntax is not very straightforward...

==Your edit to [[:Article]]== ====''Message posted on Saturday, April 7, 2007''====

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Article. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://whatever.com in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Article with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Article with a link to the details.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Article/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Article saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Your original contributions are welcome.

-- lucasbfr talk 21:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hey, as long as it works! The syntax should matter as most users will be cutting and pasting the warning. Can that complex template call be inserted into the db-copyvio template so it works automatically? --Butseriouslyfolks 01:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Done, tell me what you think! -- lucasbfr talk 11:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • GREAT! Thanks. BTW, I gather from the text of the new template that we are supposed to be blanking copyvio pages when we tag them, as is the procedure for {{copyvio}}. I hadn't realized this. --Butseriouslyfolks 19:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I prefer not blanking. For the Copyvio tag blanking makes sense since it takes 2 weeks before it gets deleted. But since speedy is..well..speedy it doesn't seem necessary and it makes it much faster to compare the article with the source site. Garion96 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That makes sense, so we should probably revise the last paragraph of the template to remove the references to the "temp" page. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Errr I must miss it but I can't find the reference to blanking. The /Temp might be useful if someone wants to work on a new version, but on the other hand they can just blank the page and start over... I don't know :) -- lucasbfr talk 14:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Making the template text smaller here, to make it easier to follow the discussion -- lucasbfr talk 14:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, the language that should come out is: "If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Article/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Article saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved." This is because they can work on the article proper without resorting to a temp subpage, so there will be nothing to move into place once the issue is resolved. I would do it myself except I can't figure out where that language is being called from. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I found it and have implemented the change. Let me know what you think of my modifications. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncopyvio?

Just a heads up, an editor has created {{Uncopyvio}}. Not quite sure what the proper channels are for creating templates or if it's even useful. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've improved it a bit. Have a look! --Butseriouslyfolks 06:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unquestionably?

  • This template includes the text "This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement". But, if the same text or image is found in a Wikipedia page and an external page, it could have any of these causes:-
  1. Copying from the external site to Wikipedia with copyright violation.
  2. Copying from the external site to Wikipedia with permission.
  3. The external site was copied from Wikipedia.
  4. The same man uploaded the same text or image to the external site and to Wikipedia.

Would "This item seems to be a copyright infringement" be better? Anthony Appleyard 11:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

  • no, this is a speedy deletion criteria, there must be no doubt on the copyright status. there are other tags {{copyvio}} and {{cv-unsure}} for cases when there is a doubt. If you are no sure, the usual procedure is to blank the page, tag it with {{copyvio}} and report it to copyright problems. -- lucasbfr talk 11:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not a "criteria". It's a criterion. Geez..... Michael Hardy 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • In theory. But many users are unclear about the difference; for example, I just found {{db-copyvio}} on a page which was most likely case 4. Anthony Appleyard 12:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a very irresponsible template and should be deleted

Are the creators and users of this template looking for a lawsuit?

People are slapping this template onto articles merely because the page is verbatim identical to some external copyrighted web page, without investigating whether the person who created the Wikipedia article is the same person who created the eternal web page (the usual case) or otherwise has permission. Everybody knows that's how this template is usually used. That may well be grounds for speedy deltion, but it is NOT grounds to say "unquestionably". It is obviously unreasonable to expect Wikipedia's users to establish "unquestionability" of copright infringement, so this template should not be here. Michael Hardy 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We need the template for speedy deletion process, so it shouldn't be deleted. But it doesn't have to have that language. This objection makes sense. Can we make it say "appears to be" instead? And should we revise the deletion criterion as well? The word "unquestionably" isn't there now, but it probably was when the word was added to the template. -- But|seriously|folks  03:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been Bold and replaced "is unquestionably" with "appears to be". The Criteria for speedy deletion does not require articles to be unquestionably. The criteria states: "Blatant copyright infringement. Text pages that meet all of the following: The material was copied from another website or other source (but consider the possibility that the other copy was obtained from Wikipedia—see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks); There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving; The material was introduced at once by a single person; and There is no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license." B1atv 18:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Baby with bathwater" problem with blanket revision statement

I am currently dealing with a persistant user who continually adds copyrighted material verbatim from another Web site an existing article. Problem is that the rest of the article is good, and the statement about doing a blanket revert on the whole article, rather than just the copyrighted material that was added to it, is overkill.

Here is a good example of what I am talking about.

I would like to suggest a modified version of the template stating simply that their own addition of copyrighted material to an article that is otherwise in no need of complete reversion. Captmondo 13:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible addition

I'd like to see this template amended to also state, "and there is no non-copyright version in the history to revert to" - since pasted-in copyvios which overwrite scratch articles should not be speedily deleted. Chubbles (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be WP:CREEPy, in my opinion. The same can be said from almost all db templates (G1, A1, A3, A7, G11, ...). -- lucasbfr talk 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to update language

Modified wording for this template is being discussed here. Thank you, Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why url?

This template seems to imply that only internet sources can be copyright violations. What about printed materials? Surely the parameter can simply be changed to "source" and people can type in an url when that is appropriate. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong user message

The URL is missing from the ueser message. see: Template talk:Db-meta#Wrong parameter on user message  Andreas  (T) 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)