This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from The Duck House appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
Why wasn't i notified about the copyvio, especially since the hook was removed from the main page as a result. Either the summary should of just been removed or i should of been notified to discuss. It should be noted that the summary appears in all press coverage of the play as this has been released by the production so in my opinion this is fair use. However it should of just been removed if it isn't. A well sourced and interesting hook has been removed whereas the summary could of been deleted by User:Maproom and discussed after.It is Supposed to be a community where we are encouraged to discuss but clearly i am wrong about that as nobody thinks its appropriate these days to actually do that.
I will note the text is clearly already in the public domain see here:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. On top of that i have found a lot of foreign language sites too, but if that still doesn't allow it fair enough but really the section should of just been removed.BletheringScot 15:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the detailed instuctions on that tag it appears that i am correct that @Maproom: should of notified me using the tag provided.BletheringScot 16:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that i question the competence of the user who tagged as clearly not read the instructions. It says that if placing tag in just an individual section not the whole article to add a div tag at end of section to hide that only. Again this wasn't followed.BletheringScot 16:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question for reviewing admin why cant i just remove the text. Clearly if its wrong it should just be wiped as editors can still see the text just by clicking edit. For something taken so seriously its not really preventing or fixing anything, as all the tag does is stop an editor who realises their mistake from removing text instantly rectifying the problem rather than waiting one week to fix it. Surely that doesn't help the situation at all.BletheringScot 16:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the text. The statements about administrators in the template apply to whole articles, which can only be deleted by administrators. --Orlady (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. @Orlady: It says though please do not restore or edit the blanked content. That to me reads like i cant blank it i.e. remove / blank the section either. Ive just been told that @Maproom: didnt even list on the investigations page so there clearly is a competency issue there as they did not follow any instructions. So out of interest when does text ever become fair use, i know with a promotional poster or cd artwork been released its fair use when tagged appropriately but just never really thought about text widely issued not being the same. Anyway its removed thats the main thing.BletheringScot 16:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio template is designed for application to whole articles. It probably should be revised so that it will be less confusing when applied to just one article section. Since I am administrator, I didn't let it intimidate me.
As for the content, as a general rule, content that was published by someone else must be presumed to be copyright-protected unless there is evidence to the contrary. The fact that promotional blurbs and press releases get reproduced in a variety of publications does make it seem like the words are in the public domain, but Wikipedia needs to treat them as copyrighted unless the original publisher has executed an official release. Regardless, the wording of blurbs (including the one that was inserted in this article) is seldom appropriate for the encyclopedia, so contributors should rewrite the content in their own words. "Fair use" applies to certain images (such as logos) that cannot be replaced by free content. It also applies to short direct quotations (properly attributed). It doesn't apply to the text that was used here. --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The template needs its wording changed because it will stop users removing their own mistake. I was fully aware of the fair image use criteria but wrongly I admit presumed text being released like that would be fair use. I know now for future. BletheringScot 18:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read some of Wikipedia:Copyright violations, but I clearly did not read it all, or thoroughly. I offer my humble apologies to Blethering Scot. I shall be much more careful in future before using tags. Maproom (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
