Talk:Salve Regina University/Archive 1

Clean-up
I see that has started on a much-needed clean-up here – thank you for that, vdt! However, I suggest that the starting-point for that clean-up should be the version preceding the from http://www.salve.edu/about-salve, copyvio that has not been completely removed. That version at least has a few references, too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Justlettersandnumbers, I'm reluctant to revert prior to the copyvio (You didn't specify which version that is). Most of it is gone now and I'll do a final check at the end and remove any lingering bits. First of all, enormous amounts of formatting would now be lost in a wholesale revert, and the previous versions, while not copyvio, are also grossly promotional. I'll continue the clean up and then, we can revisit this. Voceditenore (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I posted here instead of just rolling it back. But I'm afraid it's not that simple: the earlier version ( the one on the left in the diff I gave ) isn't copyvio-free either – see this. Looking at the history now to see where the last clean version is. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from the initial copyvio in 2005, which was soon removed, the history looks OK to me until in May 2006. There are later ones too, such as  by . Over to you,  – but if it was me, I'd go back to  and start from there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Justlettersandnumbers, I've now finished the rewrite. The building descriptions were all copyvio and have been rewritten. I've also added more material from other sources. I've now run the whole page through the Copvio detector and its OK . I guess the main thing is to keep the COI editors from attempting to re-add it. I'm also going to add a cclean template below. Voceditenore (talk) 12:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm pretty sure it should be revdeleted from revision 51867558 to the first revision you are confident is copyvio-free. That won't stop people adding new copyvio, but it will surely prevent them from adding back any of what was there before. I'm happy to request that if it would help. I'll keep this on my watchlist from now on. And now I'm going to go and admire your handiwork, which I haven't looked at yet … Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Per CRD and frequent practice at WP:Copyright problems, I don't think that's really necessary or appropriate in this case as it indiscriminately removes legitimate edits and material from other intervening editors and their contributions. Perhaps User:Moonriddengirl can advise. I know that in the past, she has expressed the view that revdel isn't always necessary or even desirable in many cases. Voceditenore (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see what she says, then – there's no particular urgency. I routinely request revdeletion when there's been a copyvio, as a matter of course; not one of the few stalwarts who deal with those requests has yet declined one (though one very large one did get undone, incorrectly I believe, just recently). Nobody's contributions are removed, the diffs are just hidden from non-admin eyes. So although the Foundation is still hosting the copyvio content on its servers, at least it can no longer be seen to be doing so by anyone who cares to look. It'd certainly be helpful in a situation like this one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Justlettersandnumbers and Voceditenore. :) The question of whether and when to revdelete has never been, in my experience, uncontroversial. There are some who think we should do it always and some who think we should do it never. I myself try to balance "risk of restoration" against "cost of use" - so, lots of copyvio + not a lot of edits = revdelete. The more edits, the smaller the copyvio, the less likely I am to do it in order to make it easier to track other contributions to the article. Unless things have changed, there just is not a clear policy on it. In terms of the Foundation perspective (which I can't speak to personally :D), legal has said this: m:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Wikipedia Page Histories. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.salve.edu/about-salve and multiple other pages on that website. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Pictures
again thank you for all your work on this article. An IP editor (connected to the University I believe) again removed the maintenance tags, but if you think the issues are resolved I won't restore them. A question I have is about the pictures included. Is having a photo of every building in the university necessary or helpful in an encyclopaedia article? To me it still gives the article the feel of a promotional brochure. I haven't edited to remove any pictures, because my edits seem to attract reverts as from the IP mentioned, so perhaps you are better positioned to take this further given your more careful work? Would e good to hear your thoughts and those of others on what is appropriate/useful in terms of pictures. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Melcous. Normally, it might seem excessive to have this many images, but this university is unusual in that most of its buildings are historically, and in some cases also architecturally, important. Several of them have either their own articles on Wikipedia, or articles about their original owners. Even its modern buildings are by quite noted architects, and the photos are of very high quality. I'm inclined to leave them in. They actually have about 20 buildings of historical significance, so this isn't too bad. As for the tags, yes I later noticed that the IP had sneaked in and removed them while I was in the middle of the revamp. I think we can leave them off. The COI tag only applies if the current article has advertorial/promotional text, and in my view it no longer does. It needs a few more refs to secondary sources, and I'm in the process of adding them. But in my view, basic facts about the university are OK to source to the university itself and almost inevitable. It seems silly to get them from printed university guides, like this one which in all cases take their information from the universities anyway. And, because of the time lag involved in compiling and printing, they often become out of date very quickly. Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)