This talk page, talking about deleting revisions. Only that admins can delete them as user request who has been attacked by another user. --Allen ^talk 14:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So... something I've found myself doing is finding a page with this template, opening up the start/end diffs, running the copyvios, and then running the copyvios again with the start diff. Would it make sense to add a ^{(copyvios report)} link after the start params? Primefac (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, kept forgetting to do this. Thanks for doing so Galobtter! Primefac (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin is atempting to fulfill the request, the revision numbers are not displayed in the revision history, while the dates and timestamps of each revision is displayed. it seems to me that it would be very helpful to optionally display the date/timestamp of the starting and ending revisions, to assist the admin doing the revdel. Is it possible for the template to retrieve those dates from the history directly, based on the revision number? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automatically, no. As a minor note, the links used by the template provide the oldids and the timestamps as well, which is what I usually use to determine the proper times to revdel. Primefac (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

linkHint detects two lint errors, and I tracked them down to the lines

</div>
</div>

From my testing, it seems these are there to avoid an empty line following the text. The same can be achieved by

<div></div>
<div></div>

which avoids the lint error. I tested this a bit and it seems to work fine, so I applied the change. There might be another reason for this or a better way to achieve this. --Muhandes (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be an option for a |url2= and |url3= parameter in this template, for times when copyrighted material from different sources is inserted. This is pretty easy to implement in the opening paragraph, but is tricky to do elegantly in the autogenerated copyvios report link. I would propose not including a link to copyvios, as it would be too cumbersome to specify which url applies to which set of diffs, but am open to hearing from anyone who has a better idea. If no one objects, I'll adjust the template code and markup in one week. MarginalCost (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently the |url= field doesn't require a single naked URL like I assumed, multiple URLs can just be combined in the field (example). I've updated the documentation to make this clearer for anyone else as dense as me. MarginalCost (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not a shock, given I once requested a bunch of revdels citing a talk page discussion rather than a URL just fine, but it hadn't occurred to me either. Thanks. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MarginalCost, Compassionate727, Multiple URLs can be added to the existing template, but the links to Duplication Detector report & Copyvios report created from the multiple URLs are useless mush, as my recent request shows. I'm in favour of the addition of |url2= and |url3=. Cabayi (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: I'll take a look at enabling this when I'm not 100 pages behind on homework readings unless someone else wants to look at it first. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto that. Primefac (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compassionate727, Primefac I've done it in the sandbox. It seems to work but in the testcases the mbox grows off to the right of the screen uncontrollably. The way the boxes indent further and further, along with the box's growth, suggest it's lost any sense of how wide the screen is. Any ideas?? Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks more like an issue with {{test case}} than anything. Primefac (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was. Thanks. Any objections to going live? Pinging Enterprisey whose User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel may need adjusting - though this is a non-breaking change. Cabayi (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. You're right, it's a non-breaking change, but Enterprisey might still want to update the script (which, by the way, is far superior to mine, and I thank you for making it!). Primefac (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! I have updated the documentation. I grouped the additional url fields under the first url param, but I'm not sure if it should be further down, or converted to a prose description to avoid burying the required |start= param. I'm also not sure if we should specify how it [doesn't] interact with |start2=/|end2=, etc. I could see some confusion if a user thought they needed to fill out |start2=/|end2= if they used |url2=, but it looks like all the auto-generated copyvios reports are tied to |start= and |end= only. MarginalCost (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best thing to do is create |url= parameters for each currently supported |start=/|end= pair, because you can have disconnected copyvios from different sources (i.e. one copyvio is inserted, it is removed, another copyvio from a different source is inserted, and so on). I don't believe that it is necessary to cite multiple offending URLs for one revision span; one is sufficient to redact the revision. We technically can include the option of multiple URL fields for each revision span, however, if we really desire that. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking the URL fields to specific diff ranges is problematic. First, there could be a single diff range that needs two URLs to cover the whole thing. Second, there could be one URL that covers multiple ranges. I'd say keeping the URL fields and the diff fields separate is best. Really, we just need to make sure that's obvious in the /doc. Primefac (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think an explanation field would be useful for those complicated cases. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added the following to the doc: The numbered URLs are NOT tied to the numbered start & end revisions. Multiple URLs may be dealt with in the deletion of a single range. Conversely a violation of a single URL may have been reinserted a number of times making it necessary to delete multiple ranges. Cabayi (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cabayi. Galobtter, if someone needs to explain the copyvios in more detail than "see <URLs> for <XYZ> diffs" then they shouldn't be using this template (per the "This template is reserved for obvious cases only" statement). Primefac (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: What's the best way to request a revdel in more complicated circumstances? That needs to be made clear. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, left out the back half of the quote: This template is reserved for obvious cases only, for other cases refer to Wikipedia:Copyright problems (i.e. put a {{subst:copyvio}} on the page). But that's really if it's like "there are sixteen revisions that each have little bits and pieces of copyvio that aren't terribly obvious" - most revdel admins I know will see diffs, check the URLs against those diffs, and revdel as appropriate. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new fields are now in my cv-revdel script. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the sandbox version be copied to the main version? It includes a link to the page history with all of the revdel checkboxes filled out already. See also one person (at press time) responding positively at WP:VPT#Template:copyvio-revdel. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable, I'd say go for it! Can't see any admins turning down "making things easier". Primefac (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Originally posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

It is a bad idea to link prominently to a copyright-infringing revision. The grounds are similar to WP:ELNEVER: It may constitute contributory copyright infringement. I am not going to bring it to TfD yet, but I am interested in seeing if my reasoning is correct. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: can you move this somewhere less prominent? (WP:BEANS) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Okay, why? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: Because if your concern was about linking prominently, you just made the links all the more prominent.--DannyS712 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03, the revisions are redacted under WP:RD1, so all that a casual user will see is a message saying the content has been removed. There is no actual copyrighted content visible that could get anyone in trouble. Primefac (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]

I'm guessing the issue is that at the time the template is placed in a prominent position at the top of the article to request rev-del it contains link(s) to copyright-infringing revision(s) that have not yet been rev-deleted (because this is a request for that to happen). This is then the situation until someone comes along and deals with it - which in my experience can be anywhere from a few minutes to a day or two. I confess that I've often wondered if the template would be better placed on the talk page where it would not be so attention grabbing to an ordinary article reader - both for this reason and because, well, it's pretty ugly while it sits there. -- Begoon 14:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the infringing content is on a particularly important page (such as a policy page or a template), I tend to put the notice on the talk page. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, this should be placed on the talk page; it's not something our readers need to see. I actually came to this talk page to raise this same issue. Retro (talk | contribs) 12:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not necessarily opposed to this change, but I do want to bring up an advantages of mainspace placement. The increased visibility is standard protocol when it comes to other kinds of deletion, and allows the content creator to more easily see the notice (especially if they're new), and provide mitigating information if applicable (e.g. the linked source is public domain, etc.). This is part of the reason we put CSD/AFD notices in mainspace, despite the ugly presentation to readers. I don't think this necessarily overrides the above concerns about linking, but I do think it should be part of the discussion. MarginalCost (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how linking to a copyrighted revision for the express purpose of hiding it from view would constitute "materially contributing to that infringement" as that article states. Considering the number of "ugly" templates we show on article page, the annoyance to the workflow of revision deletion upon seeing a {{revdel}} template and also to the person placing the template does not seem to outweigh any perceived benefits of moving the template to the talk page. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A fair bit late, but I agree with MarginalCost - I don't think the concerns are that severe and it heavily stacks the deck against newer content creators Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Nosebagbear, "it heavily stacks the deck against newer content creators". What does? And how? -- Begoon 10:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Newer editors aren't as rigorous as we'd be at watchlisting (and checking such) - putting the template on the talk page risks them not seeing it. I also feel that if it's permissable on the talk page, then that should be the case on the main page as well Nosebagbear (talk)

  Nobody should be placing one of these tags without informing the "offending" editor on their talk page about the violation. Is that something that frequently happens, to your knowledge? If so, then perhaps it needs adding to the instructions - I've always done it as a matter of course, as the common-sense thing to do. Properly warning the user so that they understand their infringement and are less likely to do it again/repeatedly seems as important as getting the rev-del dealt with to me. -- Begoon 10:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who only occasionally runs across copyvios, and in this case was editing from mobile, it would've been nice to have note that welcome and warning templates are in the list below accompanying the text cautioning to remove the violation first. Even if you know it's the right thing to do, it's easy to forget - or be unsure of the template name to use. GreenReaper (talk) 03:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright violations § Template:Copyvio-revdel. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is currently way too big. It draws more attention than a speedy deletion template, and often actually means you have to scroll before you get to the article.
I suggest trimming down the template. E.g., from:

It has been requested that certain historical revisions of this page be redacted by an administrator under criterion RD1 (Blatant copyright violations), because the page's history contains significant copyright violations of INFRINGING URL (Duplication Detector report · Copyvios report) that have been removed in the meantime.
The infringing revisions are:
REVS

to

Certain historical revisions of this page may meet the criteria for redaction as they contain significant violations of X (Critetion RD1), ^{(Duplication Detector · Copyvios)} that have been removed in the meantime.
The infringing revisions are: X^[copyvios] to Y.

(the above is just an example).
I would also suggest just collapsing the bottom part. Chances are if someone is using this template they will almost always know the correct procedures on handling copyvios.
Interested to hear other's feedback, — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Works for me - would the INFRINGING URL part still be present somewhere? ~TNT ^(talk) 16:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, the first X prior to (Criterion RD1) is the infringing URL — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried making it in the sandbox, here's my very rought attempt:

Actively working on it. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I generally support changes that reduce the template's size without inconveniencing the responding administrators, so I think the condensing the text is a step in the right direction. It's not immediately clear to me whether collapsing the nominator instructions actually saves space compared to the current template. DanCherek (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DanCherek, apologies for getting back so late, I just remembered this. I've gone ahead and removed the collapsing, and agree it's better. It's been a few months and I've notified the sutiable venues (at least I think), so should I go ahead and boldly change the template? I'll wait for your and other's opinions for a bit of course. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:RRADER. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done I've boldly carried out this requested edit. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can an additional url field please be added to the template? I have encountered a few cases where someone has basically gone and copied from as many sources as they could find, resulting in the page containing copyvios of more than just three urls.

The cv-revdel script would also need to be updated to allow an additional url to be added.

Yes, I can theoretically edit this page, but I'd rather not blow anything up, I'm not that great with templates yet.

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin who deals with RD1 on a regular basis, I would say that three are all that is necessary - it doesn't particularly matter if five paragraphs of copyrighted material were from one source or five, they have been removed and the diffs will be hidden. In other words, I don't really see much of a need for it. Primefac (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I place this template to request revision deletion? On the article's Talk page? On WP:Copyright problems? On WP:ANI? Somewhere else? Thanks, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a maintenance template that goes directly on the page (whether an article or otherwise) with the copyvio. Largoplazo (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you! Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit at Template:Copyvio-revdel. The template can (and has, see File:Mirza Ahmad Ispahani.jpg for an example) been used on files. There is nothing on the template or any policy page saying "article only". Same with RD1 - nothing said it only applies to articles. It doesn't make sense to send a file to WP:CP, so I have added FFD in the caption text. If you disagree, feel free to link a policy page. Cheers, — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 17:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're thinking of Template:Orphaned non-free revisions, which is for images and thus your change is still incorrect. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That template is only for non-free files. Freely licenced files on Wikpedia should use this template if they are overwritten with a copyvio. There was a discussion at my talk page about this at my talk page. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 17:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NFC, Any content not satisfying these criteria is said to be non-free. This includes all content (including images) that is fully copyrighted. So yes, fully-copyrighted images are non-free. I think if you want to raise this as "an issue" you should do so at a more central location. I'll keep an eye on the other discussion on your talk to avoid splitting it across multiple pages. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

copied from my talk page

@Primefac: I don't really know what you're saying. There are two types of images in the licensing sense: free and non-free. Non-free images are images with non-free rationales that should use Template:Orphaned non-free revisions to remove old revisions. That's not relevant.

Freely licensed images (of which there are at least 100,000 on enwiki) should use Template:Copyvio-revdel if they are overwritten with copyright violations. If the case is unclear, it should be raised to Copyright problems for text or FFD for files. Template:Copyvio-revdel is not a tag for only text, it can be applied to text or images. Though in practice, Template:Orphaned non-free revisions is preferred for non-free files.

If I'm being honest, this is not really something we should waste other editors' time with. But feel free to bring this up to VPT or some place like that if we can't come to some sort of consensus. Cheers, — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 13:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Do you still have any objections? If so, maybe we can resolve this at WP:VPT or WP:DRN. If not, I'll restore the edit. Happy new year btw! — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 12:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I still think you are incorrect in your assessment of the templates' functionality. Primefac (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the discussion to the template talk page. Feel free to comment. To be clear, this discussion is about whether

This template is reserved for obvious cases only, for other cases refer to Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

should be changed to

This template is reserved for obvious cases only, for other cases refer to Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Files for discussion.

— MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 20:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freely licensed images (of which there are at least 100,000 on enwiki) should use Template:Copyvio-revdel if they are overwritten with copyright violations: If I read this correctly, you mean that if a cc-licensed image gets updated with a copyright-violating version, you should, after reverting, use Template:Copyvio-revdel to get rid of that version instead of Template:Orphaned non-free revisions?
Also File:Mirza Ahmad Ispahani.jpg might not be the best example, as that one got declined by @Whpq as: "Procedural decline: wrong template".
And for Template:Orphaned non-free revisions: The documentation says "Tag non-free images with older revisions with {{subst:Orphaned non-free revisions}}" which i believe should be updated as both free and non-free files can have orphaned non-free revisions. Nobody (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1AmNobody24: To your question, yes. If you want a better example see File:Jared Maurice Arter.jpg. There is nothing on this template that says "article only".

And as for Template:Orphaned non-free revisions, it only serves a very specific usecase (orphaned non-free revisions on non-free files). It doesn't have a reason parameter or even an option to link to a copyvio. If we added those options it would unnecessarily complicate the process of removing orphaned non-free revisions on non-free files (users would get confused as to whether to enter those parameters).

The easiest solution is to just make this template friendly to all namespaces, and hence I have proposed the addition above. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 12:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. From what Primefac wrote i assume his interpretation is Template:Copyvio-revdel only for text and Template:Orphaned non-free revisions only for files. If that's right then, as i wrote above, the documentation should be changed as it should include all files, free and non-free. Combining them into template could work, but I personally think keeping them seperate is better for the categorys, as text uses have almost never backlog (1), compared to file uses (where they keep it tagged for 7 days) (2). This could maybe be fixed with the use of subcategories. Thoughts? @Matrix @Primefac Nobody (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1AmNobody24: I get what you're going for but I've already highlighted the issue.

In the case of non-free files, Template:Orphaned non-free revisions is (usually) automatically placed by a bot, with only the date as a parameter. The main purpose is to delete all old revisions that violate WP:NFCC#7 since they're not being used in articles.

In the case of free files, Template:Copyvio-revdel is manually placed by a human upon noticing that a freely licenced file has been overwritten by a copyright violation. One must specify the URL of the copyrighted content or provide an explanation, and select the revisions to be deleted. This process is similar to an article

Mixing the former and the latter usecases into one template (Template:Orphaned non-free revisions) would lead to all sorts of parameter nonsense and inaccuracy. What if a person tagged a free file with Template:Orphaned non-free revisions, but didn't provide an explanation or a link to the copyvio? At the moment, that template doesn't force you to provide an explanation/link. If you forced a link/explanation parameter, that would not only break every bot that works in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions but would also be completely unnecessary for non-free files since the explanation would always be the same (WP:NFCC#7).

Hence the simple solution is to leave Template:Orphaned non-free revisions alone and just make Template:Copyvio-revdel more friendly to free files. This could be achieved by my addition above, as well as maybe replacing the (copyvios report) link with a link to Tineye if the file namespace is detected. Sorry for the late response. — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 11:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or we don't screw around with either template (since we clearly cannot come to an agreement on that front), and use what Commons uses for this exact situation. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean replacing Orphaned non-free revisions with Overwritten revdel for files and use Copyvio-revdel for text only? That would work too. Nobody (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter template is for when an image is replaced with "a completely unrelated one" so I don't think that it can be used if a non-free file has been updated, which is what the former is currently used for. Primefac (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It's more like a file hijack, then. Nobody (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The wording of {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} doesn't technically cover that situation (currently), even though any reasonable admin would see it that way, hence this entire debate. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So for the other part (non-free revision on free file/non-free version on free file), we keep the apparent status quo of: "Use what you want, Orphaned non-free revisions or Copyvio-revdel" since we can't get to an agreement that everyone's happy with? Nobody (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an orphaned, non-free revision of a file, then that template should be used. The original argument by Matrix was that {{copyvio-revdel}} should be usable for images, with my counter-argument being that the language indicates it should be for text-based infringements. Primefac (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question is how clear this is. The way Copyvio-revdel is documented currently it doesn't say that the template should only be used for text and not files. Is there a way to see how often it gets used on files/has been usen on files in the past? Nobody (talk) 09:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the wording doesn't make sense for anything except text. In the template itself, part of the "note to the administrator" is infringing text has been removed, but in the /doc itself it only speaks of text-related histories. Images are not stored or kept in the same manner as text, so when the /doc talks about tainting the page history and violations have been cleared from the current revision it is referring to Special:History, on which file uploads do not appear (I will note that while Special:Diff/445906194 for example says "uploaded a new file", the file itself does not appear in the history). Additionally, one cannot select "a revision ID" for an image because images do not have revision IDs.

To Matrix's point about confusing parameters, this is why I am proposing the Commons template approach - no parameters are needed because the template says essentially "this template was hijacked and that image needs to be deleted" with no need for parameters or indicating which image (which should be fairly obvious to any passing admin). Primefac (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the doc of Copyvio-revdel is written toward text. But my point is that it doesn't say that it's not intended for files. Of course you can say that based on the doc it only makes sense or is obvious and i partly agree with that. But to quote a part of Wikipedia:BLUE (Which is about citing, but it works in this case too): "Remember to assume good faith and consider that something that may be obvious to you may not be obvious to them."
If it's not intened to use with files, why doesn't the doc say that? Nobody (talk) 10:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely because no one has tried using it in that fashion. Primefac (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's needed to point out the obvious. DDTMP exists for a reason . Nobody (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with one of these requests from Matrix. What we have is two templates and three use cases of which one doesn't match up well. Templates:

1. {{Copyvio-revdel}} does not explicitly state it is for text only, but the entire design of the template is to revision delete text.
2. {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} explicitly states it is to deal with non-free content revision deletion for images.

Use cases:

1. Revision deletion of text. Not a problem as that is dealt with by template 1.
2. Revision deletion of an orphaned non-free image version. Not a problem as that is dealt with by template 2.
3. Revision deletion of a copyrighted image version in a file overwrite. Does not neatly fall into either template.

Use cases 2 and 3 are very similar. Arguably, they can be considered to the be the same thing. There is a non-free version in a file that needs to be revision deleted. One option would be to reword {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} to be a request for file revision. That would affect the drop-down list of standard reasons for revision deletion (refers to F5). A new template could be created specifically for this. Or adapt one of the existing templates to support different modes. For example, have {{Copyvio-revdel}} detect which name space it is being used in and beave as it currently does for everything excpet file space where it would behave like {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}. Not being familiar with template coding, I don;t know of such a thing is feasible or advisable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of your ideas are feasible. A new template is probably the easiest (since one already exists so it's just a copy/paste creation), followed by rewording (and/or adding a parameter to) the non-free template, followed by a namespace detection in the cv-revdel template (which basically requires coding up wording for two different templates). Primefac (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a big fan of easy so I'd support having a new template. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac and Whpq: I quickly drafted a template here for files, with a warning if transcluded into mainspace. I'm not a fan of the Commons template's wording, since it would only cover overwrites, and not other issues such as freedom of panorama or non-free frames. If there's consensus I can move it to template space. Also I'm not sure whether the tracking category should be Category:Requested RD1 redactions or something else. Please advise. Cheers, — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 18:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop. Take a breath. Nothing needs to happen, and we're in no rush to get something sorted. I have cross-posted to a handful of copyright noticeboards and might ping a few cv-related editors to get more input; I'd rather we discuss for a week or two and get it "right" than to be making two dozen different templates (and then deleting half of them) because we get impatient. Primefac (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for your category question, no, it should not go into RD1, because old files are deleted either under WP:F5 or WP:F9 (not just hidden); I haven't had a chance to find the best cat but it would likely be something in Category:Wikipedia files by copyright status. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to ask a few questions for input, what should the wording be? What parameters should be included? Should it link to FFD or another page? Also about your comment about RD1, that's a fairly esoteric technical difference - RD1 should still be the overreaching policy linked to in the template; it would be quite bureaucratic to create a new revision deletion policy just for files. think that maybe we should make a subcategory such as Category:Requested RD1 redactions (files).

I don't understand what you mean by old files are deleted either under WP:F5 or WP:F9. Yes, old non-free files are deleted under that criterion, but what's the relevance? This is about free files being overwritten by copyright violations, not 7-day old non-free files not being used in articles and hence being deleted.

Also thanks for stopping my do-it-quick-and-fast attitude :'). — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 21:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a template with very specific wording, to the point where it says exactly what you wanted from the get-go ("someone overwrote this image with a copyvio, please delete"). We would not need to create a new policy for files, because we already have a policy on files. You are making this way more complicated than it needs to be; as you yourself state, Yes, old non-free files are deleted under that criterion - so why do we need to create something new? Primefac (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Matrix on the category issue. The F5 and F9 categories are for speedy deletions, not revision deletion. The only revdel category is Requested RD1 redactions, the reason for that is here. I'd put them into Requested RD1 redactions as that's still an accurate description and i don't think there will be such a huge amount that there needs to be a new category. There's also no need for a new policy as our revision deletion policy doesn't talk about text specifically, it written for entries, which files count as well i'd say. On RD1 it does say: "Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at WP:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion".
But the criteria is Blatant violations of the copyright policy which doesn't say it's for text only. Nobody (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F5 has specific wording for revision deletion: This includes previous revisions of the image. I think the issue is that the case 3 I listed above was never really thought about when wording the criteria and templates. Cases 2 and 3 are very similar. My preference would be to adjust the wording of F5 to make it clear that copyvio overwrites are in scope for revision deletion and then just treat orphaned non-free revisions and copyvio overwrites the same. The process for handling the two would be the same, and the available tools and scripts would need no adjustment. Lumping the text revdels and file revdels together is extra complicaiton for no gain. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean Whpq, i missed that when i read F5 earlier. Isn't it a problem that revdel requests get added to the categories for speedy deletion when using F5 or is that just a small issue? Nobody (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review is used for F5 revision deletions. If we have F5 cover the image copyvio overwrites, they can go in this category, and the whole thing should just work. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you tag them with the new template (that works pretty much the same as {{Orphaned non-free revisions}}, but with different text) and after seven days, they get put here. And then RevDel them as part of F5? If we get this usage added to the current F5 description, then I agree that this should work. Nobody (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I agree now that that would probably work better since people patrolling Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review would probably have more experience with files (also no need to publicise and backlog a new category). Anything else to sort out? — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 20:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so. I'll get this up and running in the next day or two. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been following discussion, and agree with Whpq about the "easy way" and adjusting F5. Overall I think this could just be resolved with some additions/ rewordings unless I'm missing something? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]