Jump to content

Template talk:Copyvio/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

This was also the discussion page for {{copyvio}}, a wrapper for {{copyviocore}}. Discussion about the core processing went to Template talk:Copyviocore, while discussion of the wrapper itself belonged here. The archives and talk pages have now been merged.

books?

What syntax do you use if the violation is from a book, not a url? Kingturtle (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You can use {{copypaste}} or {{cv-unsure}} -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No, those are for when you don't know what the source is. Just use text in place of the "url=" as shown at Template talk:Copyviocore#Not From URL, a lot of the discussion of this template is at Template talk:Copyviocore because that's where the old template went (Don't use {{copyviocore}} by itself!). Except for subst the template everything should still work the same as before. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Auto hide text on post of template

A discussion has been ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems as well as being posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) for putting in a function to automatically hide copyvio content when the either the {{Db-g12}} or {{copyvio}} are posted to an article. Please join us for the central discussion there. "Template Experts" are encouraged to join as the main conversation is between process an policy editors. Jeepday (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose replacement

Hi. We've been working on a friendlier version of this that hopefully does not lose the seriousness of the message. It is at User:MLauba/Copyviocore. Conversation about it is at User talk:MLauba/Copyviocore and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Any objections? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Much better. My main issue with the old one is that it is simply hard to read. I think the new version you've come up with is more likely to get the desired responses - Peripitus (Talk) 21:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

X!'s Article Blamer

A link in the instructions to X!'s Article Blamer would help make it easier to find the responsible editor. Bazj (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Restore to prior version

Some "tweaks" made on September 8 changed the proper function of the template -- it no longer blanked the entire page nor blanked a section (when using the /div marker). And the recent changes exposed the copyvio text on all the pages on which the template was already in use. For legal reasons, the blanking of the text is the most crucial function of the template. Therefore I have reverted the template to the version prior to the September 8 changes -- regardless of any benefits of those "tweaks". — CactusWriter (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, the instruction-set no longer appears on the Template:Copyvio page. I suspect this might be in relation to September 8 tweaks to that page, but dare not attempt to sandbox a solution. Perhaps someone could take a look. Thanks.  -- WikHead (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's up, but I've reverted the changes at that page as well, which has restored documentation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I've moved this back to Template:Copyviocore as well until there's some clarification here. The breaking of functionality of this page and the loss of the documentation at {{copyvio}} are a bit confusing. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, could this possibly be the reason why we currently see no "snapshot" view of the template at {{copyvio}}?  -- WikHead (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello, what exactly is the problem with the tweaks? Is it that the <div class="copyvio" style="display:none"> (i.e. the code that hid the text) suddenly disappeared? The change on "Copyvio error" definitely doesn't have to do with it, and the pagename changes also don't (in general, moving a template usually doesn't change anything). If the hiding of the article text was the problem, it shouldn't be a big issue to find a solution after some better testing this time. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
The two problems that were identified with the changes were that {{copyviocore}} no longer hid article text and that the documentation disappeared from {{copyvio}}. I don't know if there were any other issues; I'm afraid I'm not the most up to speed with template markup. Given that those two issues were fairly large, it seemed best to simply put things back as they were (since we know that the former did work) for more thorough exploration. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If it would help explain things a little better, this thread is perhaps a bit of a spill-over from Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Template usage problems. My bringing up of "Copyvio error" on the other hand, is in relation to the current view of the {{copyvio}} page... and the fact that it now displays a string of broken mark-up at page-top, rather than a demo-view of the actual template. It's my guess that a revert at "Copyvio error" might resolve that tiny piece of the puzzle as well.  -- WikHead (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's working now. It was missing a minor 1= when passing the parameter to {{main other}}. Let me know if there are any further problems. BTW, I was wondering if we could move {{copyvio error}} to {{copyvio/error}} for consistency, usually subtemplates of another templates are also stored as a subpage. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Everything appears to be functioning just fine to me now Evil, thank you kindly... and you too Moonriddengirl! :) Regards,  -- WikHead (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Nope, template broken again. :/ It started producing stuff like the bottom: [1]. I've reverted. I think we should probably test out the template before implementing changes; this one is pretty important. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I've moved it back to its old name, because for some reason that I can't hope to guess, moving it caused the "duplication detector report" to disappear from the display. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Large

Isn't this template a bit big to be using in articles? The whole bigness of it makes the entire page distracting and pretty much unreadable: you have to scroll right down. Just a little note would do. Rcsprinter (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite often, the template replaces the whole page. This template presumes that is the case. If people could be trained to use it, an option for blanking sections might be workable, but I do worry that people might not use it correctly. It would be better, I think, if we could invoke it by alteration in this template, such as a "partial" parameter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording needs clarification

The template currently states that "[u]nless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing". However, it's not clear what "it" refers to in the "it may be deleted…" clause. Does "it" mean the problematic text, or the entire page? The two are not always the same thing, since {{copyvio}} is sometimes applied to only a section of a page. I suggest that the first instance of "it" be replaced with "the text" or "the page" as appropriate. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that an extra parameter be added to toggle that? You say "as appropriate", but that depends on the particulars of each tagging. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
No, by "as appropriate" I meant "according to whatever the author of this clause intended the antecedent of 'it' to be". But you raise an interesting point; since what actually gets deleted in practice varies (and this doesn't always correspond to the tagged or infringing material—I have occasionally seen {{copyvio}}-tagged articles deleted in their entirety even though not all of the text on the page was infringing), then perhaps it's best to reword along the lines of "[u]nless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, the problematic text and/or the entire page may be deleted one week after the time of listing". —Psychonaut (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the template's already pretty (unavoidably) wordy, and that the ambiguous "it" already covers the and/or situation, but I don't think there are any real problems with your proposed rewrite. I say go ahead and make the change if you're so inclined. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I made that change yesterday. --Orlady (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Another ambiguity issue here... Confusion arose over the use of this template at The Duck House, in large part because the template does not contain the advice given at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Header that says: "Remove the infringing text or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can." That advice should be added to the template (I don't know how to add it without damaging the template). --Orlady (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's supposed to precede the tag, which is only to be placed in a "However, if all revisions have copyright problems, the removal of the copyright problem is contested, or reversion/removal is otherwise complicated..." situation. Once the tag is placed, the article (or section) is only supposed to be edited by admins or copyright clerks. (Personally, I regard repairing a copyright problem in spite of that as a good instance of IAR.) I don't know if there's some way to have the directions show before the tag is placed, but it would be great to encourage people to think about whether they can fix it before they shut it down. As somebody who cleans copyright problems (which are horribly backlogged), I can say I find it very frustrating when the problem had a swift resolution such as, say, reverting the last edit. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the real problem is that users sometimes add the template to an article instead of simply removing the offending text or reverting the offending edit. --Orlady (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Manual blanking versus auto-hiding

The instructions at Template:Copyvio/doc were revised to emphasize replacement/blanking (history) after Template talk:Copyvio/core/Archive 1#auto-hiding of text in July 2010. User:Nyttend edited the instructions, but I reverted. If hidden text is available for the Duplication Detector to analyze, it is also transmitted to all visitors.

I looked through a WhatLinksHere in Wikipedia: space and found many pages that should be consistent:

When using {{copyvio}}, should the page be manually blanked, or should the auto-hiding behavior of the template be used? Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This template has long (perhaps always?) been set up to work this way, and we don't hide template functions or tell people not to use them: we remove them, but only if there's consensus to remove them entirely. On top of that, let me remind you that {{db-g12}} blatant violations are generally more problematic than the ambiguous ones for which this template is meant, and we definitely don't require the contents to be removed for a G12. Finally, you're actively impeding investigation if you remove the text, since you're hindering the Duplicate Detector from doing its work — that's why we include a link on the G12 template and why we include a link on this template. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
You made the change without knowing the history, then reverted without bothering to investigate. There are currently only 59 edits to the doc, and both of Moonriddengirl's diffs from 2008 and 2010 are in the most recent 50. Your last sentence is incorrect for {{copyvio}}/{{copyviocore}}: since February 2012 (history), they generate an API call that fetches the revision immediately prior. {{db-g12}} uses the old code, but it could be modified also. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Not always, no. I changed the template in 2008 to blank the content following this small discussion. There was no consideration in that discussion of HTML conveyance of the text (which we did discuss here). I changed the directions accordingly and, in 2010, changed it again. Duplication detector doesn't work quite as easily when content is blanked, that's true, but we do still have content in history. The old way works without the liability issues of transmitting the text for the months that content currently sits tagged. I'll add two points, while I'm thinking about it - having the template autoblank in spite of the request to replace the content is a good idea because prior to the creation of this function we would occasionally find this template sitting jauntily atop the published copyvio. If they forget to remove it, it does stand to ameliorate that problem. Also, I have to confess that I am myself inconsistent in the practice. I sometimes blank and sometimes cover. (I've restored the status quo on the directions pending resolution of this.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I would strongly prefer cover/hide versus actual page blanking. As Nyttend noted, we don't blank for G12s which are supposed to be more blatant infringements. If transmitting the copyvio to the end-user was a material concern, we'd have to require blanking for those as well. This tag is supposed to be for either more complicated or less-certain infringements, so the concern should be less here. Honestly, I think that worrying about transmitting hidden text, which isn't rendered by the client browser, is too far along towards copyright paranoia. Intent counts a lot when it comes to actual litigation of copyright issues, and hiding the text from the human viewing the webpage shows clearly that our intent is to avoid violating copyrights.
Having the potentially-violating material in the current revision is important for tools like Earwig's copyvio detector, which only pulls the current revision of the article for comparison. I find this tool more useful than Duplication Detector because it shows where in the article the material is, not just how much. Other tools which only use the current revision include the copyvio search bots. Also, having the current revision contain the hidden wikitext encourages people to edit it and continue to improve the article or try to remove the copyvio. Having to go back to a prior revision to get the material to work with means that fewer people will actually try — it's a well-known phenomena that as the clicks required for a task increase, the people who will actually do it decrease.
However, if the consensus is to prefer blanking, that's not an insurmountable difficulty. One can just start an investigation by reverting to the pre-blanked revision if one needs a tool that relies on current revisions. —Darkwind (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
But there are different concerns with G12s and CP listings. G12s are deleted within hours. If you look at WP:CP, you'll see that we've got articles that have been blanked since early July...during which time if merely covered the content is still published on our site, in spite of the fact that we have been notified of the problem. Articles are not always tagged this way because they are less problematic copyright issues. Sometimes, the only difference between the level of copyvio is that people used the wrong tag. Other times, people claim that they can get permission and imply they can (even just by their username), but this proves to be untrue. With a G12, the material is whisked away. With a CP listing, it's still published on our site, in spite of the fact that we have demonstrably been notified of the issue. Again, I've admitted that I'm inconsistent with this myself, but I can't argue that knowingly keeping potential copyvios in publication on our site is "best practice".
Other than admins, copyright clerks and OTRS agents, people are not supposed to edit the article to try to improve the copyvio, so that's not such a good reason to have the content there. :) Rewrites are supposed to be proposed in a subpage, as the template explains. Among other reasons, this helps reduce the close paraphrasing issue that often results from people attempting to obscure a copyvio by changing a word here and there and leaving the substance largely intact. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with MRG's rebuttals. The difference in processing time should have been obvious: G12s and G10s are the most urgent speedies. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
"Other than admins, copyright clerks and OTRS agents, people are not supposed to edit the article to try to improve the copyvio"
But do you think this is what happens in practice, Moonriddengirl? I can see Editors trying to improve the article to get rid of the violations, in fact I know that this happens. But in the case that prompted this template change and discussion, there was a "temp" page that had a rewrite but I don't think the Editors working on the article even knew it was there. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do. It is very rare for me to find a page with content covered by the template where the material has been subsequently edited, and even rarer for me to find such cases where the changes are acceptable. Most rewrites are proposed in the temp space. But that's an interesting point - I wonder if there's some way to make it more obvious when a temp space proposal exists. We changed the way WP:CP lists these so that it's obvious (it's either a redlink or not), but I wonder if there's some way to make that work on the template when it's on the article itself? Maybe a "There may be a rewrite underway here. Please feel free to assist!" --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the tools that only examine current revisions, should they be run on tagged pages with already identified copyvio? Doesn't one of the bot tasks run on new articles only? It would be more convenient for Earwig's tool to support historical revisions, but it is possible to excise the identified copyvio, restore the rest, and run a check on the presumed-clean page. I found an old feature request for arbitrary inputs, User talk:The Earwig/Archive 4#Copyright work wishlist (March 2010), but I think it was implemented separately as the Duplication Detector. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Reading the end of the March 2010 discussion, it seems to accept oldid appended to the page name as an undocumented feature. The WP:Wikimedia Labs version has a separate input for revision ID. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

API rvlimit

I noticed that the WP:Duplication detector report counts of characters, words, and matches seemed very high. I looked at the raw mw:API output and realized that it was returning the page text for the last 10 revisions.

I added &rvlimit=1 to the API call. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple sources

The documentation for this template needs to specify how to list multiple sources in the "url" field. You can obviously separate them with a comma or semicolon, but then the link generated for the Duplication Detector report doesn't work. – Maky « talk » 16:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Horrible template, complicated and deterring

After a discussion on the African-Wikimedians mailing list I have a first look at this template. It looks outright horrible, terribly complicated. Myself being wikipedian for many years I have problems understanding what to do after seeing it.

People who write copy-paste entries and disregard copyrights need guidance. They are not hard-core criminals. They probably often are stubborn and will not take a first advice (guess that is how it was in the Thomas Mensah entry). So blanking the whole or parts is probably a good way of shocking them into rethinking.

The obvious advice is to rewrite the concerned article. This is hidden somewhere in the template but after reading it twice I am not sure what to do then. Of course you guys are terribly bright but I guess much of wikipedia is written by dumb guys like me. This template takes much of space and complicated advice how to handle a procedure but not how to guide interested people to change the thing.

So please dumb this lousy thing down that it looks less lawyerlike. If everybody is whining how the number of editors declines on wikipedia - well here is a pretty good example to explain the reasons.

NB: Else I find that everybody enjoying and using gibberish expressions like "copyvio" deserves a firing squad. Cheers from the African bush! Kipala (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! You think I deserve to die, Kipala? :O Your approach seems a bit hostile. I'm sorry if you find this overly complicated but would be way more likely to want to work with you on it if you didn't start on the attack. :/ The template is complicated because dealing with these things is complicated. Rewriting the concerned article is only one option for fixing the problem. We also have an elaborate and long-established system of permissions that needs to be explained, and we also need to tell people what to do if the tag is placed wrongly, as it sometimes is, to flag content that is not copyright restricted. Explaining those things without taking a lot of space is difficult. If you have specific suggestions for making it easier to use, hopefully without suggesting death as a desirable outcome for some of us, I'd love to hear them. We've worked to make this page friendlier before (as noted above) - this is what it used to look like, then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Context: [2]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Now you may live! Because you managed to write 12 lines without using even ONE gibberish insider abbreviation. So you are not a hopeless case... Even if you still seem to be fixed to the idea that this has to be horribly complicated. Kipala (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Er, along these lines, the template doesn't seem to tell an OTRS agent what to do once the copyright has been released and a ticket number is available demonstrating this. Should the agent simply delete the template? But then this leaves no opportunity to indicate a ticket number. Anyhow, I am confused. It IS a very long and complicated-looking template! KDS4444 Talk 14:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Copyviocore bottom

This template is just </div>.

I created it so it will be obvious if it's left behind unintentionally. In pages that intentionally use <div> and </div>, it can be hard to figure out if a specific use of </div> is tied to the use of the {{copyviocore}} template. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for update

This template blanks the entire page leaving only the message. If the page blanks, can you please add the following notices at the end of the message?

{{Mbox|image=none|text=This page has been [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking|blanked as a courtesy]].}}{{Mbox|type=delete|text=<big>{{subst:red|Please [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking|blank this page]] so that it only contains the copyright notice.}}</big>}}

\/

2600:1:B156:F4BD:74F9:458E:D7DA:B5C9 (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It does the blanking by opening a div that does not display. The edit does not look necessary. Are the "please blank" instructions actually accurate? "Please blank" requires further discussion and visibility. Potentially, copyvio clerks would like to review the text of the page without blanking anyway. The notices in the existing template are sufficient to cover the intent of the first notice suggested mbox addition. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources

{{copyvio}} suggests the ability to list multiple sources by separating URLs by spaces, and this template alludes in its prose to the possibility of having multiple sources, but neither template seems to actually support this. The links to the copyvio checkers are broken when multiple URLs are specified separated by a space. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 06:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

ell or pipe?

In sans-serif fonts, lowercase ell "l" is hard or impossible to distinguish from vertical pipe "|" (as well as capital eye "I"). This can be troublesome anywhere we show examples of wikicode, but it's especially bad here because in the syntax descriptions

"copyvio|" (copyvio|)

looks almost exactly like

"copyviol" (copyviol)

which would be an equally reasonable abbreviation for "copyright violation". So I'm inserting a space there. --Thnidu (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There are unnecessary wiki-links between other wiki projects which is older method before wikidata. --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. Please make sure that the links actually exist on Wikidata before removing them here. From what I can see at d:Q7211897#sitelinks-wikipedia, there are only three set up so far. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Usage of ESA/Hubble images, videos and web texts

Regarding the note left on my talk page, please find the information about Usage of ESA/Hubble images, videos and web texts in the follwing page: https://www.spacetelescope.org/copyright/. --Jmencisom (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Request

Can this template be made to automatically transclude Category:Temporary maintenance holdings? As it stands, what happens when it gets applied to a page is since all of its content gets hidden that the page technically becomes an uncategorized article, and thus gets picked up by the Untagged Uncategorized Articles tool as a page that needs categories — but for obvious reasons, it rightly shouldn't be categorized while the copyvio issue is up in the air, so those of us who work with the categorization project need the pages to go away and not clutter up our tools. I've manually added the crapcatcher category to the 10 or so pages I came across today that had the copyvio template on them, but it would be helpful if there were a way to ensure that pages that are affected by the copyvio template just don't even get detected by the uncats tool in the first place. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Could somebody actually respond to this request sometime this millennium? Pages with this template on it are still showing up on the uncategorized article tools, so I'm still having to manually add them to Category:Temporary maintenance holdings to get them to go away. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
(Later done by this guy in October 2019 despite getting its own category) Aaron Liu (talk) 01:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of line break

I have noticed there is a line break at the top of the template page. Portion of text of the page source is rendering this:

{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />#ifeq:{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />NAMESPACE}}|{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />ns:6}}|<!-- Please remove this template and the one below it -->{{Copyvio error}}<!-- Don't forget to remove the template below here! -->|<!-- Please do not remove or change this Copyvio message until the issue is settled -->}}
{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />empty template|{{error:not substituted|Copyvio}}}}<includeonly>{{Nobots}}</includeonly>

The above text should be replaced with this one:

{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />#ifeq:{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />NAMESPACE}}|{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />ns:6}}|<!-- Please remove this template and the one below it -->{{Copyvio error}}<!-- Don't forget to remove the template below here! -->|<!-- Please do not remove or change this Copyvio message until the issue is settled -->}}{{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />empty template|{{error:not substituted|Copyvio}}}}<includeonly>{{Nobots}}</includeonly>

That will remove the line break. Once removed, the template will not include it in a future tagging into any article. --AnhDucYang (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

progress

How is it possible to see who is handling the concern when this is placed on a page? I am a bit hesitant to act on it, as the template only indicates specific groups to edit it. On the other hand, I can not find who handles a case and whether there is any progress, I the template is very... "in you face" ... L.tak (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Making the template more intuitive

Hi all,
{{copyvio}} is one of the few copyvio templates this is reader facing and that readers will see, yet it is worded and ordered in a confusing manner that may mislead readers on the issue at hand. Its excessive length is an example of banner blindness and there is a lot of information that is unnecessary both to readers and the copyright editors whom will be dealing with the issue. As a result, I have made a redesign available at {{Copyvio/sandbox}}. This, among other things

  • Majorly cuts down on excessive text, e.g. the "Wikipedia and copyright" section: readers only need a brief summary and otherwise it's valueless
  • Make use of the standard Wikipedia colour scheme for negative deletion templates, to clearly convey this is a deletion related issue
  • Rearrange hierarchy to convey important information in a more reasonable order that helps work through the problem
  • Use a PD image (right now, it's a copyvio(!))
  • Present a different series of information for mobile users, i.e. the collapsibles are replaced with links to relevant pages
  • Only show the filing instructions do logged in users

I would appreciate feedback on this. Many thanks – Isochrone (T) 13:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think an update to this template could be a good thing, but I'm hesitant about some of your proposed changes.
I was going to say that this is an investigation/notice template, not a deletion template per se, so red banner and the exclamation point instead of the question mark might be a bit over the top...but on reflection this does frequently end up with deletion or at least mass removal of text, so now I'm unsure. If we keep the question mark, then the current image can simply be linked to which would maintain required attribution or else replaced with a similar PD one such as File:Soupçon de copyright.png.
You changed some important language, from "CC BY-SA 3.0) and the GNU Free Documentation License" to "CC BY-SA 3.0) or the GNU Free Documentation License". I haven't read through all of the language, but we do need to be careful of what we're presenting, not only how we're presenting it. (And on that topic, we may need to update this and some other templates to be CC BY-SA 4.0 now, I haven't been paying as close of attention to that switch as I should).
Last for now, logged-out users need to know how to file at WP:CP also. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@VernoWhitney thanks for your reply.
I have amended the licensing text, and removed the {{if IP}}, though considering only one person will ever require that text I'm still tentative about including it in the template instead of a linked page (maybe it should be in small text like the csd templates). However, I am unsure of whether the GFDL link should remain as dual-licensing is mainly for historic text and donated text only needs to be CC-BY-SA afaik.
Considering the entire page or at least a great portion is blanked, I think using the deletion template colours are valid as it clearly conveys a negative impression of what has occurred. Using the yellow ambox colour is an option but considering this is mainly for minor cleanup I am hesitant to doing so (templates like {{copypaste}} also use red).
Thanks for your comments and feel free to highlight any other thoughts. – Isochrone (T) 15:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
We also switched to CC-By-SA 4.0 licensing recently, so all new released text can go under that license instead of CC-BY-SA 3.0. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@Sennecaster thanks, I updated that as well. Feel free to suggest other changes as appropriate. – Isochrone (T) 19:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Since no-one has replied for now, I'm going to boldly go ahead and make the change if there are no objections. – Isochrone (T) 11:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I've made one final suite of changes, culling a lot of stuff: it's important we only have key info here, we can link off to other pages as relevant. – Isochrone (T) 16:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Redesign

Moved from User talk:Aaron Liu § Quick note on Template:Copyvio/core

Thanks for your edits to Template:Copyvio/core.

I like the redesign, but I think it is such a bold change. My main concern is that it may look jarring to new users. For full page nominations, sure, it is fine, but there are other problems like incompatibility with mobile.
Awesome Aasim 01:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi! First of all, I was not the redesigner, @Isochrone is. They have gotten no objection at Template talk:Copyvio#Making the template more intuitive. Secondly I don’t see how it is incompatible with mobile save for the official apps, for which I kinda made a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Only display image if user is not using the Wikipedia mobile app. The only avenues I see for fixing that is 1. Don’t display the image Minerva either 2. Use ambox which disappears the entire thing on mobile.
But even without that, I believe the old design (the one you restored) is even worse at mobile compat. Even in Minerva it’s absurdly long, and it’s even longer on the app view.
I also prefer retaining the summaries and the icon instead of removing them. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh I see... Maybe I misinterpreted.
But I think the edit should certainly mention consensus. These mboxes don't handle well on mobile - in fact, I don't think they are displayed at all. I think any transition will probably require a style similar to the other deletion templates we have. Awesome Aasim 12:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Mboxes indeed don’t display at all on mobile app and only display the issue, image and color on Minerva. However the redesign is not an ambox, it just mimics a deletion ambox; it displays on mobile, if that’s what you’re asking. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Awesome Aasim I did have some concerns that the red banner might look a bit overwhelming: maybe I could change it to the "content" yellow? It would be great if this could happen on Template talk:Copyvio :)
I also made sure to get some other users (incl. myself) to check it on mobile and I made it as responsive as possible. – Isochrone (T) 14:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Additionally I put notices on three project pages and requested opinions (though not !votes or supports) on the Discord server. I think WP:SILENT, and there haven't been any complaints for the five days it's been live. If there are no objections I will restore it, replacing the red with yellow and shrinking the text slightly. If you do have objection, it would be great if you could voice them on the talk next time, though I understand it seemed only one person was involved here. – Isochrone (T) 14:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think any changes should be made to your design and we should just use it without any major changes after Aasim has replied. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Awesome Aasim – Isochrone (T) 06:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I am wondering as well if the text could be shortened a little. I was experimenting in the sandbox of collapsing the center part except the instructions for filing under a "Learn more" button but I can't figure how to change it to behave more like a link. Awesome Aasim 10:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Your collapsing doesn’t work for me; I think we should just use {{hidden}} instead of trying to do that Aaron Liu (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu Do the changes in the sandbox look good? I think this may be a little better, the only concern I have is display on mobile. I also added unsubst to the sandbox version. Awesome Aasim 14:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Maybe add the image back as a left image (and if that isn't that good maybe mobile-only)? Also, I think the nesting in the redesign (put every bullet point in its own hidden) is pretty good and I have no idea how to fix the horizontal bar Aaron Liu (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Copyvio/Archive_2&oldid=1186715706"