Template talk:Copyvio

== Category:Candidates for deletion (Copyvio)? ==

My understanding is that copyvio is a special instance of deletion due to it's serious nature of sensitive material on the wiki. My proposal is that instead of making pages that contain this template link straight to the bog standard "delete bin", they should go in a sub category of Category:Candidates for deletion, namely Category:Candidates for deletion (Copyvio). --Jamie 08:25, 27 March 2007 (EDT) Nevermind, found the suspected copyright category. --Jamie 09:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Copyright violating images

I just copyvio'd Image:Bramble_Blade.jpg, but the template isn't really apt: "This page appears to use text from..." Should there be a specific copyvio for images or, a simpler option, could this template be changed to include copyvio images? --Snograt 15:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I changed the wording to specify "content" rather than "text". --Rezyk 15:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Perfect! Thanks, Rezyk --Snograt 15:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Why Talk: ?

What's the reason for directing edits to a talk page rather than a subpage of the article? Eerie Moss 17:26, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure, but I always guessed that it was to discourage a separate discussion page from starting up (so we don't have to worry about eventually merging discussion in "Talk:Some article/temp" back into "Talk:Some article"). --Rezyk 17:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Url?

What if the content in question isn't from a webpage? I just ran across the cover for a Need For Speed game. :S — Galil 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to enter a url; and the correct url for nfs would be ea.com :P poke | talk 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, I see. I figured since GWWT forced me to enter a URL and nothing else, and since it says URL in the template itself that a URL was required. Also, I assumed the URL was to the copyrighted content and AFAIK ea.com doesn't keep covers on their webpage. :P — Galil 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete that as a copyvio anyway. As it's posted as Image:Hunted! map.jpg, I'd speedy it as vandalism ^^ --Snograt 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

P.s - just as well it came up with the Error creating thumbnail: /home/httpd/gwwiki/home/gwwiki/en/bin/ulimit-tvf.sh: line 5: /usr/bin/convert: No such file or directory bug on the Hunted! page, eh? --Snograt 23:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking the same when I saw it. :P — Galil 23:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

Could we change this template so that if the item in question is an image it doesn't include it in Category:Rewrite since an image can't be rewritten? --Kakarot 14:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be reuploaded.. poke | talk 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, just never really understood that category when it came to images but that makes sense. --Kakarot 15:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

^^ - but you are still right :P And imo the category is rather unuseful as most copyvios simply get deleted and nobody cares about a rewrite :P But who cares :) poke | talk 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Another idea I thought of a while back, something completely unrelated to the above suggestion so I have no idea why I am writing it under this heading. The addition of a guildwiki parameter where it defaults to yes when not included but if you do include the parameter "guildwiki = n" or "guildwiki = no" it wouldn't include that note about guildwiki. Do you think that would be useful at all or would it just create extra bother? --Kakarot 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, don't think that is needed, as the GuildWiki note doesn't harm when it is not related to the current copyvio. And I think most people would forget to add that parameter ^^ poke | talk 16:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I figured as much, might be why I never suggested it when I first thought of it lol ^_^ --Kakarot 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Anja just did it... poke | talk 12:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Image replacement text

Based on the comment by Fighterdoken on the my question on the noticeboard talk page should we change the section that presently is the first bullet point to the second one instead?
• {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Image||<br />Do not edit this page! Edit [[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Temp|this link]] instead.}}
• {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Image|<br />Do not replace this image until the original copyvio version has been deleted.|<br />Do not edit this page! Edit [[{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Temp|this link]] instead.}}
Since it already is mentioned for articles it should be mentioned for images too. --Kakarot 01:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

go for it. poke | talk 06:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's as poke said. Mostly unrelated question:Why 2 ifeqs? Backsword 06:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok implemented, as to your question Backsword, do you mean 2 ifeqs above in my question or the 2 that appear on the actual template? If it's the former the first one is what it was currently as and the second was my revised version. --Kakarot 10:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since it's possible to delete revisions of images, shouldn't we update the text so it encourage users to change the image? If the user doesn't change it, it should be deleted as normal.

I've also been thinking if we should have a different {{copyvio}} template for images which have a revision violating a copyright. Something like {{copyvio|<url>|revision}}. We could tell users to add this template after they've changed the image by having a note about it in {{copyvio}}.

But if we can have all of it in one template somehow, it's always better. - J.P.Talk 11:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Is my idea this bad? :D - J.P.Talk 15:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Change the text if you think that will help, however adding additional information (apparently only for the deleting sysop) is not really worth the effort for the users that tag or update the image. After all sysops are able to see if something was changed since the tag was added and have to check the violation status anyway before deletion. poke | talk 16:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you know, the idea actually was bad ^^ - J.P.Talk 22:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy

Considering copyright violation is, well, illegal, should the template be changed to make it speedy, instead of traditional three days normal delete? calor (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the three days is there so people can contest or discuss it. --Kakarot 22:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's an obvious and outright violation, I don't mind speedifying it (as long as the uploader/user has been notified, as usual, so they don't upload it again or just so they know about it). If it's something that could be contested, such as an image taken off Google and so the exact copyright information is unknown or isn't clear-cut, then waiting the three days could be useful. There are obvious cases which speedifying wouldn't harm, and then there are not-so-obvious cases which may need contesting. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that the copyvios are seperated from the normal deletions on GWW:DEL, I would say leave it up to the discretion of the administrator to check not highlighted entries in the list.. poke | talk 16:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this broken?

I used this template on File:Guild arch heretics comm icon.png with the format given, and the template still doesn't display the link and instead says "no link given" like the default. What broke this? ~FarloTalk 21:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

When there's an equals sign anywhere in the URL, add 1= before the link. pling 22:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. ~FarloTalk 22:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)