- Existing description, explanation
- How-tos to consolidate
- Previous discussion
Please see the discussion at Template talk:Copied#Should this template be removed?.
In some not insignificant number of cases, copying content from a donor article to a recipient article introduces a problem with attribution into the recipient article. This is illustrated in the discussion linked above. I propose the addition of a Particular concerns subsection in the Proper attribution section highlighting this concern (possibly among others) and discussing it in sufficient detail to include mention of approaches to avoidance of this problem. I'm not much of a wordsmith, but unless someone else does it first I'll probably take a whack at this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I've added a subsection titled Material with multilevel attribution covering this into the Specific situations section of the article. Please improve as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this. Probably best to leave a note about it at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights for feedback. And to ping copyright experts such as Moonriddengirl. Moonriddengirl hasn't been on Wikipedia since May 2019, though. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- I left a note about here and here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- As noted in the linked discussion, we're talking about "attribution" in a sense different from license obligations and this issue has nothing to do with copyright. But it is good advice. There is an easy technical solution – User:Ucucha/HarvErrors – and I'd love to see it integrated into the user experience by default. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- @User:Wtmitchell This issue was already covered in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Other reasons for attributing text. The primary reason is for copyright issues, the lack of failing to copy a cation in full is secondary (hence its placement in that section)_-- PBS (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've just removed this text  as it confuses two meanings of "attribution": the one to do with verifiability from sources (as in WP:Attribution) with the one to do with provenance of text for copyright reasons as explained at Wikipedia:Copyrights (for which this page is really a supplement). Now, of course it's good advice to tell people that when they copy something from one page to another they should be careful the copied text does not depend on anything that's left behind (that's a broad issue that's not restricted to cases of copied short citations whose bibliography entry has been left behind). But this has to do with the technicalities of copying and is beyond the scope of this page, as it's currently set up. – Uanfala (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, as I wrote this I realised that this page has a few other subsections that are not specifically about preserving attribution (say, the one about content forking). Maybe a section similar to the one I've just removed could be added, but it needs to be stated in general terms as it's not just about stranded bibliography entries. – Uanfala (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think it is coverd by the section "Other reasons for attributing text". -- PBS (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
How can i copy an article . if i want to use it as a of my website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thijin William Deng (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
"Should" to "must" for clarity on copyright requirements
A discussion on User talk:LouisAlain highlighted problems with the current wording that used "should" (diff). Did it mean "must" or "ought to". It seems that English dialects differ in the meaning of "should" in certain contexts. This diffrence as was highlighted in the great move debate of 2012 over the article now titled "Men's rights movement"
From the OED:
- Must: A use of ‘must’ (must) to express a command, obligation, or necessity; (hence) an obligation, a duty; a compulsion
- Ought: Expressing duty or obligation of any kind; originally used of moral obligation, but also in various more general senses, expressing what is proper, correct, advisable, befitting, or expected.
In this case "must" is a better fit along the lines of WP:BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons" because Wikipedia editors have to make such attribution when copying text from one article to another to meet copyright and the licencing policy for articles on the Wikipedia Foundation project. "Ought to" is more appropriate for guidence on behavioural issues eg
should ought to respond to proposals in a way that helps identify and build consensus.
-- PBS (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
RfC announce: Attribution when copying within Wikipedia
There is an RfC about attribution when copying within Wikipedia here. Your input is welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)