Talk:Alliance (esports)

Untitled

Please do NOT remove the deletion Tag. If you wish to contest it do so by clicking the link and commenting on this page. It is a wikipedia violation to simply remove the deletion tag. thanks Drjamesphillips (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

"Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted. Game content and materials are trademarks and copyrights of their respective publisher and its licensors. All rights reserved." - Leaguepedia.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Might I suggest this article gets moved to the Draft section for the while this article is fixed--- :D Derry Adama (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've tagged the article as an attributed re-use of the page on esportspedia, which is licensed under a compatible license as long as attribution is provided. @Prisencolinensinainciusol: (ol right!) You mentioned leaguepedia above. That is also compatibly licensed. If the content here was in fact pulled from there and not esportspedia, we just need to change the template on the article page. Please let me know, thanks. Crow^Caw 21:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No longer the case, https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Alliance_(esports_organization)&url= --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• So, we can either add a statement to the edit history stating the initial creation was copying a properly licensed source, or we can redact all versions that contained that content, as an unattributed copy is a violation. Let me know. Crow^Caw 00:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If the prior is possible and proper, then certainly. I'm not well versed in WP Guidelines, so don't know if radaction is required, but the content is CC BY-SA and is copied wide over the internet so I can't see any legal requirement to redact. --- :D Derry Adama (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• It does get confusing, that's for sure! Redaction is only needed if the source for the content (even if gone from the main article, it still is readable in the history) is not attributed. The template I put on the article, even if 99% of that material is gone, would accomplish that fairly innocuously. An edit summary linking back there would to the same, and is better in this case than redaction I think. I'll just put that on there and be done with it! Thanks for clarifying the content change yesterday too! Crow^Caw 21:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)