Talk:826 Naval Air Squadron

Untitled

This article is to be deleted because the factual history of the squadron has been documented elsewhere. For it to be accepted as an original article I am being asked to pretend that the squadron did otherwise nthat what actually happened. Perhaps if I pretended that they spent the war giving joyrides the Wikipedia Thought Police would accept it.

Plucas58 (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

proposed deletion

What utter nonsense, let us hope that the administrator does not take this ridiculous copyright tag at face value and actually reads the article. People must realise that writing about documented historic events will be bound to throw up similar text at some stage.Can someone put a leash on that copyright bot as it seems to be extremely over zealous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.Petebutt (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that it is now seems to be a close paraphrase of the original, copyright, text. To quote from the policy: "...close paraphrasing of a non-free copyrighted source is likely to be an infringement of the copyright of the source..." Looking through the page history, it seems that the first iteration was almost entirely a copy and paste of the text from the other website, which has since had minor alterations, rather than having been written from scratch in the contributor's own words. I've given an example below. That is why I tagged it for further investigation.

Original text:

In March 1941 the squadron, now also with Swordfish, took part in the Battle of Matapan and damaged the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto by torpedo, subsequently taking part in operations against Tripoli and Bardia...

Article text:

In March 1941, newly equipped with Fairey Swordfish, it took part in the Battle of Matapan, damaging the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto with torpedos. Other operations against the Libyan ports of Tripoli and Bardia...

The bot merely identifies the possible infringement. The blanking and tagging for further investigation is done by a fellow editor. The outcome of the investigation is determined by an administrator or recognised copyright clerk. The best solution would be to start from scratch and rewrite using your own words, preferably drawing from more than one source. I hope that helps clarify the nature of the issue. If I can help further, please let me know.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hear! Hear! But the Bot is just a program and knows no better. Its the (presumably human) administrators who follow that have the responsibility of making the final decision. And if they themselves must use cut and paste techniques to send their messages, why can't they find someone to rewrite them in a less pompous and patronising style. Welcome to Wikipedia-We're zapping your contribution-Happy editing-Have a nice day. yeuch!

Plucas58 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to entertain any suggested changes for the messages left by the bot; I did not write them and I believe there's currently A/B testing going on to determine what messages are most useful for contributors. Thanks, — madman 04:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see no reason for deleting this either on covered elsewhere grounds or copyright violation. The stuff from the FAA archive site has been rewritten: there are clearly similarities but this is unavoidable since the same material is being dealt with as a narrative, so there is inevitably a structural similarity. As for the covered elswhere, why not take a hatchet to the vast number of stubs about footballers who played half a season for some minor-league team, or the acres of popular music trivia.TheLongTone (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for the page to be deleted as long as the copyvio problem is dealt with. I spent some time last night looking online for additional material to draw from but there's not a lot. Having followed a couple of links to Hansard reports, it appears that there might be more available offline at the Fleet Air Arm Museum but that would require a visit. There are snippets of information available from various books one can find via Google books but I couldn't find anything substantial enough to be useful. So, for now, two courses of action suggest themselves and perhaps it would be worth doing both. Permission to copy the text could be requested from the Fleet Air Arm archive. There's a contact e-mail at the foot of the web page and instructions on how to proceed in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia can be found here. If someone would like to take responsibility for doing that, I'm willing to have a go at a rewrite from scratch based on the information we have. Between us, we should be able to get this sorted.--CharlieDelta (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

On the assumption that no-one else has done this yet, I have written to the Fleet Air Arm Archive to request permission to use their copyright text.--CharlieDelta (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And I have now stubbed the problematic sections as a temporary measure to remove the potential copyvio. Hopefully, permission will be granted and the previous version can be restored. The text post 1951 may have been drawn from this user contributed website. I can't see a copyright/copyleft notice there, but the Duplication Detector report looks Ok to me.--CharlieDelta (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on this link I am going to remove the copyright vio banner on the article. Based on the information in this link there is no reason to suspect that Wikipedia is violating copyright because of facts and dates. To think that this constitutes a copyright violation is absurd and poor judgement on the grounds of someone who doesn't understand. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoa! You have done nothing to resolve the blatent copying of the Fleet Air Arm Archive website - the template should NOT have been removed and the potential copyvio should NOT have been restored without clearance from an expert.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)