Template talk:Copyvio

For discussion on the usage of this template, see WT:Copyright problems.

Requested move 14 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

---

• Template:Copyvio/core → Template:Copyvio
• Template:Copyvio → Deleted to make way for page move

– I added {{#invoke:unsubst}} functionality to this template, which will prefill the timestamp parameter. Since the "core" template fills the timestamp when substituted, the wrapper template is no longer needed. Awesome Aasim 15:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: templates with non-redirected content, such as Template:Copyvio, are ineligible to be proposed titles in move requests unless they, too, are formally dispositioned. "Template:Copyvio → Deleted to make way for page move" has been added to this request to meet that requirement. If this is incorrect, please modify and be sure to factor in "bot considerations". P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim - Just a procedural question here- the title you've proposed has non-redirecting content. For this request to actually be listed that template would also have to be moved. Do you have a proposed target for that? If so, could you add it to the template (WP:EXPLICIT). Or if the proposed target is just some sort of duplicate or the fulfill the same process, you can just list it as Deleted to make way for the move. I don't really know how the templates side of this works, but I do know that the way this is proposed currently is causing a minor problem with the bots on the RM side. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• I have made a post at WP:VPT to see if someone with technical expertise can have a look at this. On the face of it, I worry that moving as proposed which would involve deleting a template that has existed since 2004 will cause some sort of issue but every chance I'm wrong. Jenks24 (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  I just tested it and seems to work okay. The only issue I am seeing is the HTML comment which is at the top of /core is now being pasted onto articles, (see [1]). @Awesome Aasim can you comment on whether this was intentional? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  @MSGJ, I moved the comment into the wrapper and it works fine with substitution now, see here. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wording change aimed at avoiding lint errors

Not including {{copyvio/bottom}} causes missing end tag lint errors. This hasn't really been an issue thus far, as this error category is considered low priority and copyright issues would generally get cleaned up way before anyone would get to fixing the lint errors caused by them. However, since all higher priority lint error categories have been cleaned up in mainspace, this is starting to change. Although there are still 70,000+ unfixed errors, the ones involving tags with higher disruptive potential for layout – like <table> and <div> – are very close to being eliminated with only ~1000 errors left, dropping daily by ~100. Which means the {{copyvio}} lint errors are starting to surface, so helping to avoid them has become something to address. Gamapamani (talk) 09:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)