Talk:Oolated Luck

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Comics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Disney (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Rule violationEdit

I'm not up to speed on everything Wikipedia but such a long article on a ten page story DOES violate copyright. This is simply going to have to go and I'd be a monkey's uncle if I knew how. Lots42 (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason whatsoever for copyright violation. A retelling of a story in the contributor's own words does not violate copyright. A copy&paste from some other website would, but not original text describing the plot. Really, with your logic, every Wikipedia article about any book, film, TV series, or comic book story that actually described what the story was all about would violate copyright. I'm going to remove the copyvio tag, if you disagree, feel free to add it back. JIP | Talk 19:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand. The author of the story wrote the long article? Even if this is so, my point still stands. They don't own the character. Too much detail violates copyright. Lots42 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
No, the author of the story didn't write the article. An independent Wikipedia contributor did. But I still think that a Wikipedia contributor describing the plot in his/her own words does not constitute a copyvio. Copy-pasting text from another website or including scans of the actual comic would. I don't see how ownership of the character would be an issue. Too much detail would only violate Wikipedia's policy that Wikipedia is not a fansite for plot-only descriptions, not violate copyright. JIP | Talk 21:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Either way, not that I fully agree with you, I was right to do what I did. Lots42 (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Saw this at the Help desk The plot summary goes into too much depth relative to the length of the story that it covers. Providing encyclopedic coverage about a story often involves summarizing parts of it, and that would most likely be fair use, but here the summary is too extensive. Its not so much a summary, as the whole story retold, and that in my opinion is a copyright violation. Telling the same story with different words, is a derivative work, and subject to the copyright of the original. Monty845 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Plot-only description of fictional works#Avoiding violating copyright. Deor (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your input. I figure that it would be best to rewrite the plot section, to omit all the detail and concentrate on the story's main idea: how Donald's nephews got Gladstone's luck to work against him. Especially the detailed description of every event during Donald's attempt at capturing every single raffle ticket has got to go away. JIP | Talk 20:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)