Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems

message: What the title says. The page is clunky, and the actual "problems" require a decent amount of scrolling to get to. The instructions are long, not friendly to new people to begin with, and is either duplicated or contradicted in other areas. The non-listings part of this entire page is treated as basically SOP policy/guideline/guide by the community, and hosting it on what's essentially a daily "to do" list is probably not the best. So. Here's a few solutions that I thought of, others probably have better ones. These can be considered independently.
#Split the instructions into its own page, titled something like "Copyright cleanup instructions".
#Rewrite it to be less wordy in all areas.
#A lot of the cleanup instructions are essentially mirrored over at WP:CV101, so we could condense everything that isn't specific to copyright problems over to that and link it.
#Rewrite other policies, guides, and guidelines to contain the guidance at CP (some of it is already thereand remove it entirely. 
TLDR; page long, guidance should be put elsewhere. Thanks, Sennecaster (Chat) 01:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem I see is with WP:BACKWARDSCOPY... it could go into WP:CV101 but if we are to move out stuff from here that page should be completely restructured really.  – Isochrone (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if content is moved out, then WP:Copyrights#Copyright violations needs to be amended as appropriate, as it links here.  – Isochrone (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rearranged the header a bit-- I'm considering moving the backwardscopy instructions to CV101 if there aren't any objections? I know it isn't great but it seems to be the most relevant page.The other solution is making a new page altogether for most of this stuff, but I doubt adding another explanatory essay is going to make anyone happy.  – Isochrone (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:IOWN and should be merged into WP:CV#Information for copyright holders. Most of rewriting can be merged into WP:CV with a bit of relevant stuff about rewriting on CP pages specifically kept. Obtaining/verifying permissions section is duplicated in WP:Requesting copyright permission and WP:CV#Contributor is copyright holder. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have boldly merged WP:BACKWARDSCOPY into WP:Mirrors and forks, and have significantly changed the wording of it to make it more understandable to non-copyright versed editors. Hopefully it's fine.  – Isochrone (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Updated CPC template. I have removed deletedcup, because I do not think it is used in our current workflow with how VRT and CP interact. I've changed the VRT parameter to read more about that permission is pending; this can happen with or without temporary deletion of the content. Unverified as a parameter was kind of a "pending, will need deletion", so I just changed it into a verification fail parameter for when VRT cannot accept a licensing request. more rationale at CPC talk. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving instructions not directly related to Copyright problems 

message: It seems to be de facto accepted that new articles, even those added in the last day, can be reviewed if the solution is very obvious or clear (or if the requestor is just wrong). The top of the CP page says that pages should be listed for five days before being reviewed (albeit "typically"), the  template says seven days, and in reality it seems to be "keep it there for a few days and then touch it".
Having a lot of inconsistencies is not great from an outside-perspective, so should we decide on one set timeframe for reviewing? I would be in favour of scrapping it all together or significantly reducing it (maybe two or three days), but at the very least we should decide between whether it is five or seven days.  – Isochrone (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We get around to it when we get around to it, except for presumptive deletion which is 7 days. See WT:Copyright problems/Archive 23#5 day minimum. Sennecaster (Chat) 13:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather Archive 22: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 22#5 day minimum. Boud (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solidifying the request review timeframe 

message: On the aforementioned article are multiple references using Wikia's 'nocookie.net' domain to host PDFs such as: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/diabetesindogs/images/d/d5/Providing_care_veterinary_diabetics.pdf These do not appear to be open access journals and given what Wikia is, I believe these are illegally hosted here and I presume referencing/linking to them on Wikipedia may be a copyright issue, although I am not sure. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of dog diseases]] containing references that link to potential copyright violations. 

message: Any chance of cleaning up Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 May 11 = June 2024 Ukraine peace summit? Until this is cleaned up, all post-infringement edits will likely be part of the revdel sequence (presumably from 10:40, 11 May 2024‎ to whatever the last edit is when revdel-ing), which might be annoying to people who want to know what's in the edits. This article is likely to get more attention over the next few weeks, and hit major media headlines around 15-16 June. Boud (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Dealt with. Next time, simply removing the paragraph and using an RD1 request may be more efficient. Thanks for raising it for attention. MLauba (Talk) 16:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks! Next time I'll use  if in my judgment the case is simple enough. From a random sampling of a few of :Category:Requested RD1 redactions, it looks like these get handled quickly - all the ones I checked are dated today. This would also reduce the number of versions of a given article that are revdel'd. Boud (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ping 

message: * Draft:Qefweqf ([ history] · [ last edit] · rewrite) from . I wasn't able to find their license. Both articles are clearly promotional. I see I've broken the syntax somehow, sorry. Why isn't there a template? Doug Weller talk 09:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this not appearing on the main page?