Talk:Sword of Aragon

an important note about this article's content

Resolved

 – Copyviolations removed. Jappalang (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a pre-emptive statement, so bear with me; the majority of this article is taken word for word from the game's manual and poster. While normally I would be against this, this article is the ONLY place on the internet that this information is preserved for easy access. This game and its content have fallen into the public domain, as far as I know, and no legitimate copyright holder exists or has laid claim to it. The game itself is considered abandonware and can be found easily for free, however original copy protect included reference to this material, which is only available here and on a site that claims to have free downloads, yet charges a monthly subscription fee. Long and short of it, PLEASE do not remove the content from this page unless an original copyright holder steps forward.209.136.161.135 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

--> Actually, the manual information is quite easy to find online in .pdf form independently. Perhaps this should be linked separately, since this information seems out-of-place in an encyclopedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.186.14 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The game has not fallen into public domain; abandonware does not mean it has no copyrights in force. SSI and its properties have been acquired by Ubisoft. The above statements on the copyright status of the game is patently false. Jappalang (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the article's history, clearly all of this text was in place from the start and the article should have been deleted at that time. However, some new text has been added since that; is it simply enough to remove that text and start over from that point? I assume this would mean deleting all older versions of the article as well. BOZ (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As instructed by the copyvio template, I have created a version of the article at Talk:Sword of Aragon/Temp which contains all the non-copyvio text, and when this version is deleted I would like that version to be pasted back here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure that is how it works. Those edits that are not copyright violations have to be attributed to their authors. I am not certain if the administrator, who is going to handle this, has to delete this page then merge in the subsequent edits to a new creation, or do something else. I have asked Moonriddengirl to have a look at this.[1] Jappalang (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Yes, those edits do need to be attributed. There are two ways, basically, that this can be handled in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. A list of contributors can be added to the talk page with a note to see it for attribution. Or attribution can be provided in edit summaries. Usually, I do the latter when preserving good content in copyvio cases, but since the content has already been copied over, the former would serve. Fortunately, this article has a short history, so creating such a list shouldn't be much of a problem. It complies. It should be pasted here, probably at the top of this talk page for easier access. It should include all contributors who added creative content, even if relatively minor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea. Since we're only talking about 17 total edits and I have some free time, it should be too tricky. I'll reconstruct the article, edit by edit, without the copyvio text (basically, everything between the lead and reception section), and for each edit summary I'll say something like "originally posted 15:06, 17 May 2008 Stingers81". I'll post this at User:BOZ/Sword of Aragon. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, done with that. I omitted any contributions which did not directly affect the remaining text. We now have a version identical to the one I made earlier, but now with attributions for each remaining edit. BOZ (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Expansion and B-class

I was bold here. I expanded the article greatly,[2] and gave it B-class. It has all the information reliable sources can give, and fairly comprehensive. This article, however, is unlikely to get to A-class or FA, since critical data (sales) is lacking, and Development is still pretty much sparse for FA levels... Jappalang (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)