Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Merge, an attempt to reduce the articles to be merged backlog and improve the merging process. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MergeWikipedia:WikiProject MergeTemplate:WikiProject MergeMerge articles

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Relevant pages

Existing description, explanation

How-tos to consolidate

Previous discussion

Help talk:Merging

Confused...

Currently, under what material does not need attribution, it includes: material that has been deleted in full, with no copy kept on the public wiki. I thought it was clear that using deleted content is explicitly forbidden, though? So, I guess it doesn't need attribution, because you can't do it anyway, right? So should that part be removed? The term "public wiki" makes it seem like using articles from Deletionpedia or such would be allowed.

Furthermore, it says that attributing the first two is encouraged in reference to common expressions and idioms and basic mathematical and scientific formulae. Who would you attribute that too? That makes no sense. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your removal. This guideline, including the Where attribution is not needed section, applies to the copy being attributed back to the source's authors.

If the copy is deleted – using page deletion or WP:Revision deletion – attribution is not required. This may seem obvious, but removal or blanking is insufficient: the content can be restored from the history. Also see WP:Revision deletion#Notes on use, Username hiding (copyright attribution issues): All changes have been reverted and the text of all intervening revisions has been hidden.
For example, if an editor copies the Pythagorean equation from Pythagorean theorem, they are encouraged to follow Proper attribution even though it is not required.

Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get your first point, but I still disagree with the latter. Why would we encourage proper attribution to basic mathematical formulae? The whole reason we require attribution is for copyright issues which require, you know, new work to be protected (e.g., new text or even lists). But equations are uncopyrightable which is why they do not need attribution. There really not need to be even that line about encouragement where an editor pulled out 2 + 2 from here rather than Khan Academy. What is the purpose? Has anyone ever done it? Why? I Ask (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Flatscan: Your first paragraph does seem confused to me. We are talking about attributing content copied from a page, where that content was subsequently deleted from the article (thus, from the public-facing wiki), but still visible in the revision history of the page seventy-eleven edits ago back in last Octember: even *that* requires attribution, though you can't see it in the article. If, however, you get an ovesighter to definitively remove it from visibility even via the revision history, in which case no copy of it exists here anywhere, then you don't need to attribute it anymore. Does that make sense?

As to your point about equations: it's true that certain non-creative content which generally cannot be copyrighted (such as, say, publicly available populations of major cities) needn't be attributed , but determining which content falls into that bin is tricky, and it's much safer to attribute, if there's any doubt. Falling afoul of WP:COPYVIO more than once or twice is a good way to get blocked. If you feel confident of your skills in copyright law in the U.S. (where Wikimedia is headquartered) and in some cases in other countries (where the copyright holder may be), then you can worry less about it than the average editor. Lastly, I'm just another editor here, not a lawyer, and especially not a U.S. copyright attorney, so take my advice fwiw. Mathglot (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may be in agreement on deleted content despite having difficulty communicating. I prefer to reserve "delete" for the admin tools and "remove" for the ordinary editor action. Oversighting the history works, but revision deletion is sufficient. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted content
Original	Copy	Acceptable	Reference
Visible	Visible	Yes	WP:Copying within Wikipedia in general
Visible	Deleted	Yes	Where attribution is not needed (shortcut WP:NOATT; item currently removed)
Deleted	Deleted	Yes	Where attribution is not needed (shortcut WP:NOATT; item currently removed)
Deleted	Visible	No	Reusing deleted material (shortcut WP:RUD)

Is this table clearer? Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Proper attribution" needs strengthening

Section § Proper attribution, subsection § Hyperlink says:

A disadvantage with this method is that the page history of the original article must subsequently be retained in order to maintain attribution. To avoid the source page being inadvertently moved or deleted, it is helpful to make a note of the copying on the talk page of the source article.

While this is sufficient in theory, in fact, I see even experienced editors occasionally crediting a Draft (e.g.), which, if not turned into an article, would disappear in six months. (Further, "mak[ing] a note of the copying on the talk page of the source article" won't work, if the source article is a Draft, or a user page such as a sandbox or user subpage. Probably the § Hyperlink section, which already correctly notes the disadvantage of linked page attribution, should be strengthened by explicitly pointing out the cases where it is not likely to work, notably Draft space, and perhaps the others.

What should happen in those cases, is that *all* the editors who worked on the source page should be credited by linked userid in the attribution statement if the list of editors is not too long, which is likely to be the case for Draft, sandboxes, and user subpages, thus satisfying the ToU. In the rare cases where there are too many editors, probably the source page should be moved, perhaps directly to an archived Talk page of the destination article, and then the article attribution statement can link that page. (That may be so rare, that it's not worth bothering about mentioning it.) This would fulfill Wikimedia's ToU, without worrying about a draft page or other source page disappearing, along with its attribution history. Mathglot (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § List of gender names

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § List of gender names. Given the comments that have been made so far, it would be helpful (in my opinion) for this discussion to have input from editors experienced in attribution policy/requirements for copying within Wikipedia. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 14:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you edit the source page?

The lead says:

It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary on the source page as well.

But why would someone edit the source page? Am I misunderstanding this quote? — W.andrea (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably for cases where we don't just copy but move text from one title to another. Mentioning the source and destination in both edit summaries is basically leaving breadcrumbs. --Joy (talk) 19:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense, but it needs clarification — maybe like this:

If content is being removed from the source page, then it is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary on the source page as well. (See § Merging and splitting.)

— W.andrea (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]