Template talk:Copyvio

Adapted from Wikipedia
This template was adapted from the corresponding template on Wikipedia, with some changes to make it better suited for use on Wikiquote. The contribution history for the Wikipedia template follows: —LrdChaos (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC) * (cur) (last) 2006-11-28T20:32:49 Centrx (Talk | contribs) (+"Note: Articles on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliab)   * ...    * (cur) (last) 2004-06-01T14:52:34 Ahoerstemeier (Talk | contribs) (with the template variable expansion the two-part  and  can be merged to one)

Changed temporary link to avoid Talk namespace
I've changed the link to the predefined temporary page for a replacement article from "Talk:ARTICLE/Temp" to "ARTICLE/Temp". Talk pages are used to discuss content changes, not create them. Furthermore, while an article is being worked to replace one to be deleted, it makes sense to carry out the discussion on the Temp article's talk page, so that when the Temp article is moved into place, its talk page will move as well.

I can see an argument for using the original article's talk page instead, as it might conceivably have a prior content discussion. But if the article is so bad a copyvio that it earns this tag instead of being reverted to an earlier non-copyvio version, it almost certainly has no worthwhile discussion. In fact, my observations suggest that most (if not all) Wikiquote articles that have been copyvio-tagged have had no discussion page, or nothing more than the expected announcement of the creation of the Temp replacement article, which is even more reason to keep the talk page associated directly with the Temp article.

In the (currently unlikely) event that a copyright holder posts permission to the original article's talk page, or someone provides evidence that the material is public domain on the talk page, these posts should lead to a retraction of the copyvio notice, which would render the Temp article moot, anyway.

For these reasons, I have been bold and made this change. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Intention of this template... and the checkcopyright template
In 2007 User:LrdChaos explained the intention of this template, see here:


 * ... I created the copyvio template for cases of obvious copyright violation, usually those cases when a page was nothing more than a copy of a website or similar. This was in response to a series of pages being VFD-nominated as copyvio and blanked; I adapted the Wikipedia copyvio template so that we could provide a consistent message for when pages are blanked as copyvio. On the other hand, it's been my thought to use checkcopyright when a page simply has acquired so many quotes that it's a possible copyright violation, but isn't a direct copy of a source (that is, pages that quote more of a book/film/TV show/etc. than can be considered fair use, but still isn't a blatant copyright violation). I've seen the distinction as, copyvio is for obvious, blatant, copy/paste copyvio, while checkcopyright is for pages that simply are overquoting.
 * While it would certainly be possible to combine the two (and their categories), I think we'd lose an important distinction between the two classes. (I find it generally easier to trim down an "organically-developed" copyvio (which I'd have tagged with checkcopyright, and often have some level of formatting) than a copy/paste of a web page copyvio (which I'd have blanked and tagged copyvio), and are often basically raw dumps of data). —LrdChaos (talk)

-- Mdd (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)