Talk:Stumped (radio programme)

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

BBC Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Radio Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Collaboration of the Week : Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show)

i am the creator of both pages bbd stumped and stumped (radio) i think stumped (radio) is the better title for the page. Have requested the BBC Stumped page be deleted

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --Mattdsport (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i created bbcstumped and was then told stumped (radio) would be better hence the two identical pages can you please keep stumped (radio) but delete bbd stumped new to this sorry

This article was previously nominated for deletion because it was a C&P move of BBC Stumped. Unfortunately the original was deleted so its history is no longer visible but that, too, had been nominated for deletion because it had been directly copied from a BBC article.

This version of the article, too, directly copies from the BBC article, following it word-for-word in places and with only minor alterations in the others. Because of its origin most of it is promotional rather than encyclopaedic and all the actually pertinent information about this radio show appears already inline at BBC_World_Service#Programming. "Stumped (radio)" does not seem to be a likely search term so I have not simply redirected to that page.

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --132.185.160.97 (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article that you site as a breach of copyright is in fact written by the BBC Press Office http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/stumped

And this is a BBC page about a BBC show so there is not copyright infringement.

This is not a BBC page, this is a Wikipedia page. http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/stumped clearly states (bottom of page) that it is copyright of the BBC; Wikipedia has no right to copy it.

talk) 12:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Mattdsport (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article on wikipedia is now suitabally different from the bbc press release you quote. I wrote both but have changed the wikipedia one. In no way couldnt anything think they were similiar

I agree it is not so clear cut as before. However it still follows the same structure as the BBC text and says pretty much the same thing using very similar wording. I'll let someone else (hopefully an admin) decide whether it is sufficiently different to be acceptable; I'm not sure it is. The policy is to protect Wikipedia so if there's doubt it seems sensible to err on the side of caution.

talk) 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Mattdsport (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed again there is no corrletion between this article and the one you site. There can not be any copyright issues when it is different

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2015/stumped

I have re-written the content so that there's no copyright violation. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]