Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Super Smash Bros. Melee/Trophies

Super Smash Bros. Melee/Trophies
here is some ssb melee info

Copyvio, unless someone removes the text from the Description column then the page should be deleted. Because of the amount of copyrighted stuff on the page it might ba a good idea to delete it anyway and recreate it without the copyrighted parts. The comment on the talk page is interesting. Gerard Foley 00:04, 12 February 20 06 (UTC)

Note: A copyvio free version of this page is available. I still think that due to the amount of copyvio stuff on the page it should not be available from the history (i.e. delete then recreate - copy/paste the copyvio free version) Gerard Foley 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete In the "Super Smash Bros. Melee" game there is a room with trophies and in-game descriptions. I do not currently have a copy of the game and trophies to check against, but it seems that our descriptions at Super Smash Bros. Melee/Trophies are unattributed copies of ones from the game. --Kernigh 00:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have the game on next to me right now (what a great game), the descriptions are unattributed copies of ones from the game. You can also try Google Images - Gerard Foley 00:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because module has removed the copies. --Kernigh 06:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. No reason to delete the article when the copyright vio can be deleted. - 24.111.49.175 01:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * keep. I am translating seemingly, I believe removing any copyvio. I am working on fait here because there are no sources to substantiate this copyvio. However there are no sources to substantiate the information in the book either. I'm not to familiar with wikibook rules for citation and references but on wikipedia they are fairly strict. However since nobody really pays attention to them and it is often broken I'm going to have to say keep. Take notice of my work that I will be doing. I plan to do at least 3 to 4 translations a day. That means I shouldn't done for a long time. The next question is... is it worth re-writing it or will it still be a general text format copyright violation? Any legal advice? --72.57.8.2I5 02:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion is from my talk page user:72.57.8.2I5
 * I don't think your rewording will be enough. It's still too similar to the original work and will probably be just as much a copyvio as it is now. Gerard Foley 02:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess you read through my first 4 translations? You obviously have a copy of the original work somewhere. Is this a book that looks like this,ie. similar format? If we reword it shouldn't it be okay?  The only trouble I see is if the entire article is base on one source... I'm guessing that's what you mean right. We would need more sources to diversify and less chances of a general format copyvio? --72.57.8.2I5 02:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh! Sorry about that. Yes! Thank you for your reply on my user page. I believed you that this is a copy vio however now that I see it, I feal the frustration. When you see it yourself how disrespectfull some people can be for copyrights I can understand the nomination for delete. When you see This module lacks citations. I can also understand your wanting to work on it. I now feel that may be wise to revert the recent changes I did. Putting the article to the point where we removed all the copyvio's. Place the 3 or 4 ones I translated back in. Then place a link on the talk page to the copy vioed version for easy access so if I chose to continue translation it would work. We still would have one problem. Attributing the information to the original source. Perhaps you could put the source down on the page! as per w:WP:CITE --72.57.8.2I5 03:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Translation makes a derivative work, and does not fix a copyright violation. For example, if I wanted to translate a Harry Potter book from English to another language, then I would need permission from J.K. Rowling and the publisher. --Kernigh 22:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete if this is indeed a copyvio (even translated one... Kernigh's comment above is 100% correct and even a translation can't prevent copyright problems). Furthermore, Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee/Trophies mentions that this page had been deleted earlier.  I can't find it in the deleted page history, however.  If the copyrighted content is removed, the general trophy discussion can remain, but IMHO it would be better to simply remove all of this content and then start all over with a fresh page.  --Rob Horning 03:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the copy vio section... well actually I reverted it to the version from ip. 24..something. There no longer appears to be any copy vio. The question is. Do we want this type of content on wikibooks? Textbook? Study guide? I guess technically it is! My vote must hence remain the same as above. Good feedback. Thank you for the feedback. I guess in this case since I don't have a clue about what the subject is... yes!  it would be a pure 100% translation. (before comming here, to be honest... I was going to say "delete it" I don't really have enough time to translate. (here comes my scenario spinning web) For the future... how would we develop this article without original research? Is playing the game and leaving your opinion on the character, a type of personal experience, original research? If we can't recollect from personal experience, where should we gather our information? I think the issue here is having one document heavilly sourced on one source and it being identical. (copyvio) The copyvio was removed. Should there be a rule in wikibooks that suggest in some cases such as this that a book needs more than 3 different and verifible sources?  For the sake of this issue you don't have to answer these questions. I was just curious for future reference. --72.57.8.2I5 04:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Factual information can't be copyrighted (yet... the U.S. Congress is thinking about changing that distinction so make sure you contact your local congress critter) so listing that sort of information is perfectly fine to have in this project. This collection of information is also acceptabed as an appendix to a Wikibook about a game, although most of the content in this Wikibook seems to be nothing but a collection of appendix-like pages.  That is something that all game related Wikibooks seem to suffer from at the moment as well, so this one Wikibook is not unique in the sense either.  This is also one of the reasons why there is a discussion to remove all gaming guides from Wikibooks (one I happen not to support, BTW).  Still, there is no reason this page couldn't be referenced elsewhere in the description of the game and in other sections of this game guide, or even other premium "easter egg" sections for other games as well.  Or the Wikipedia article about this game for that matter.  --Rob Horning 04:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I changed my vote due to the removal of the copyrighted text. Still, there may be other problems with this content.  --Rob Horning 18:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kept - No additional discussion has been added to this VfD for more than a month, and the general concensus is to keep this content here on Wikibooks, with the copyright violation issues resolved. This discussion can be archived in about a week. --Rob Horning 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)