Talk:Tabaco

Deletion necessary

Does anyone want to keep any of the non-Wikipedia (or otherwise copy-pasted) content of this article somewhere for easy re-creation before this article is deleted per Wikivoyage:Copyleft for being started with uncredited copypasta from w:Tabaco, complete with a totally useless footnote number? Exec8, as the article-starter, and Traveler100, also in the article history, I particularly ping you. I don't think we should wait more than 24 hours to delete this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you were searching for confessions, but see this. Should we restart that article due a copyright violation of mine that I made back a long time ago? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, see copyright violation from here. As I understand, giving credit is not enough. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You could and should hide those edits. The problem in this article is that the copyright violation is in the first edit, which I believe can't be hidden. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Done, but what about all the revisions in between? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I've also hidden the revision on Tabaco, but the text still shows. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:41, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Do any of those edits have copyright violation problems? In this article, all copyvio text has to be removed, with the removal also hidden. I think that since the copyvio was in the first edit, the best practice (as well as the usual one) is to delete the article. But if you feel like you can be confident that all the text in the article is OK once you delete what's most obviously copyvio, we can certainly do it your way. The important thing, to my understanding, is that there be no visible record of specific copyvio text. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Can recreate it if you want but I feel the use of hiding of edit history is already creeping past what was agree upon. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Untrue. Hiding edit histories because of copyvio is very long-standing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, here's the issue with the Livermore article: I added text that violated copyright around March, and then removed it in maybe June or July. In between, however, there were maybe 20 revisions, including one that brought in information from Wikipedia (without copyvio). To hide the copied text, all those revisions in between would have to be hidden. It seems to be better to delete Livermore and then start again, which I can do. Are there any other solutions? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. The problem is that recreating the article means the other users don't get credit for their contributions in the edit history. Maybe this should be discussed at Wikivoyage talk:Copyleft or some other general talk page where it'll get more views. Meanwhile, what should we do with this article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that by deleting the article, you lose the credits, making the copyright/copyleft situation worse. I'm really sorry for what I did back on the Livermore article, just that back then I was new here and didn't know how these things worked.

I think it may be better to work with what we've got in the case of the Tabaco article. Let's remove the problematic content and hide the revisions that contained the content, and then we can continue with the rest. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

That's OK with me if we clearly know which content is and is not copyvio and can just eliminate the copyvio content and then hide the edit doing so. I mean, I guess that's OK, although some versions will still be viewable that contain the offending content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I mean that we hide all the revisions with copyvio content in them. There aren't many of them, right? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

No, but we also have to delete the offending content. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You mean, the copyvio is up there on the Tabaco page at the moment? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"Understand" is from w:Tabaco, complete with useless footnote number. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

What if we added credits to Wikipedia now? Would that work? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

In no case do we want verbatim copying including footnotes. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean, to add the usual credits on this page, like you see at Talk:GR 223. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I understand, but we simply cannot leave the article as it is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘OK. Then I guess we should start by removing the copyvio content. Discussing this while leaving the copyvio for all to see seems to completely go against the point of this discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the most obvious copyvio. I'm done for now. Please check w:Tabaco and see if there's more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I checked with Wikipedia, removed copyvio text, and almost everything is gone. For example, see this and this. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. So now, I suppose we need to hide the edits that removed the copyvio? Or should we keep them to show due diligence? I don't know, because the usual procedure is to delete an article and re-create it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

There's basically nothing left. I suggest we delete the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Or redirect, if there's a good target. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Now that we see what's left, I think the best move is to delete and enable re-creation, after all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, thinking of the suggestion at the start of this whole thing, I think you're right. Probably a good idea.

It's interesting, actually. The Wikipedia article is structured like a Wikivoyage article, with different headings and order. But it has a section for things to see, things to do, etc. Most WP articles about places are not like that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

So, any objection to deletion? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Not from me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; currently, I see little to no reason for restarting this article unless someone knows about the place and wants to add some original content. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 03:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)