Talk:Intellectual rights to magic methods: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:52, 6 July 2016

Latest revision as of 22:57, 3 February 2024

(5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 1:

The{{old resultXfD ofmulti the|date=26 [[January 2006 |page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual rights to magic methods|discussion]] was |result='''Keep'''. }}

{{WikiProject banner shell|

{{WikiProject Magic}}

|}}

{| class="messagebox standard-talk"

|-

|[[Image:Evolution-tasks2.png|50px|Articles for deletion]]

|

==Untitled==

This article was nominated for [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion]] on 26 January 2006.

The result of the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual rights to magic methods|discussion]] was '''Keep'''.

|}

==nonsense==

Line 25 ⟶ 19:

A tag has been placed on [[:Intellectual rights to magic methods]], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

<div class="center">''this article has no pourpose''</centerdiv>

Under the [[WP:CSD#General_criteria|criteria for speedy deletion]], articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

Line 43 ⟶ 37:

([[User:Bid297|Bid297]] ([[User talk:Bid297|talk]]) 20:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC))

:I've tidied up this part of the article to better reflect the facts and context. It may be that Hessel Bos is the first person to register a trick with the US Copyright Office but there's no cited source to confirm no one else did it earlier. Also, (as now stated in the article) registration is not the key to copyright protection - copyright automatically comes into being when a work is created. Due recognition needs to be given to the Teller case because that involved copyright being upheld in court, whereas Bos's action was just a DMCA takedown request. The paragraph read a bit like a PR piece for Hessel Bos. I figured it would be harsh to delete it but I've edited it to hopefully be more in line with Wikipedia style. I checked the registration numbers on the US Patent Office site and it shows both registrations categorised simply as "text". I'm dubious about the passage that says "Later he did this as an actual magic trick" - I don't see anything that says the USCO recognises "magic trick" as a specific category of work that can have protection.

:[[User:Circusandmagicfan|Circusandmagicfan]] ([[User talk:Circusandmagicfan|talk]]) 22:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)circusandmagicfan

== Industry standard and praxis ==

Line 138 ⟶ 135:

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 17:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Intellectual rights to magic methods]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/810324740|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208101709/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1994/3/1994_3_34.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1994/3/1994_3_34.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 15:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)