Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Non-copyrighted projects
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support proposal.
AnilSerifoglu (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Support proposal.
AnilSerifoglu (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)Hello,
Per this SH and per the relatively recent deletion of George Lucas: A Life and others.
Proposing a new section to be added to "Real-world articles" of the notability policy titled "Non-copyrighted products" to simply read:
- Articles for products explicitly labeled as not endorsed, authorized, licensed by, or affiliated with Lucasfilm should not be created unless they otherwise qualify under the notability guidelines for fan projects. Examples of products that do not qualify for individual articles include unlicensed books such as George Lucas: A Life and A Galaxy Far, Far Away: Exploring Star Wars Comics, which instead utilize {{BookCite}} to document their content. Alternatively, {{Softredirect}} may be used to point to a product's corresponding Fanpedia page.
And yes, I did have to check Google to see if uncopyrighted is a word. It apparently is, what a win.—spookywillowwtalk 20:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Support
- Good to codify. These TCs passed, but the overall ruling isn't in policy, despite the community support for such. But yeah, some of these do boldly state "we're 1000% not official" which is really just {{BookCite}}, though it is phrased as 'products' so works for any such magazine or otherwise. And, it also doesn't affect a lot of the magazines that come out around film releases so not to worry about that; those always have some sort of copyright thing being like "hey, we interviewed xx and everything here is reserved/copyrighted by Lucasfilm."—spookywillowwtalk 20:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Codify the precedent Fan26 (Talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- OOM 224 (he/him) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 20:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Rsand 30 (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- A wise man[source?] once said "It might be in our interest to codify our stance toward un-official publication in policy." A wiser woman later decided it was best not to wait for him to write the actual policy or it would not come out before 2025 ^^. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 20:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 20:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Lewisr (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wok142 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- JediMasterMacaroni(Talk) 22:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 23:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC) - AnilSerifoglu (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Panther436 (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Bonzane10
(holonet) 02:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC) - Zed42 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sanathestarr (talk) 06:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Supreme Emperor Holocomm 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Master Fredcerique(talk) (he/him) 15:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Booply (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
Discuss
- Also want to note that it doesn't affect any of the ambiguously licensed Legends stuff; just the ones that really, explicitly state "we're a completely unaffiliated thing."—spookywillowwtalk 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Uncopyrighted would mean "not under copyright" (as in open-source), per Wiktionary (based on an attested use in press from 2008). It would be best to stick with the current term used in the name of the CT (Non-copyrighted) to title the section, as it's a clearer typology: the concerned products have not been copyrighted by Lucasfilm, but they are most likely subjected to some kind of copyright, such as the writer (George Lucas: A Life get copyrighted to the author, Brian Jay Jones for example). NanoLuukeCloning Facility 20:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done and notified.—spookywillowwtalk 20:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)