Template talk:Copied/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Copying to userspace article

I am contemplating creating an article using in part chunks of text copied from other articles. To use this template seems neat and I would use explicit edit summaries also. However, I would create the new article in user space before eventually moving it. At the time of the move, would I revisit the places where I have transcluded the template, altering the arguments for the destination? What about the diff (or permanent url) arguments? Thincat (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you would need to update the article links, using Special:WhatLinksHere on the user space redirect. For the diff or permanent links, I believe that oldid and diff parameters (unaffected by the move) will override the title parameter, so no change is required there. Flatscan (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. In that case things do not seem too difficult. Thincat (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Copied multi

I wrote {{Copied multi}} as a way to compact multiple Copied templates. Flatscan (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea. :) Those copied templates can multiply. I wonder if there's any way to tweak it so that it can specify which is the source article(s), since that's helpful for attribution. I don't know much about templating. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't take credit for the idea – I think it's been mentioned before, and Otherlleft requested it last month at Template talk:Merged-from#Nested version?, pointing out Talk:Technology in Stargate. I used the new templates at Talk:List of characters in The Nightmare Before Christmas; do they look okay? Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternate attribution parameter

When attribution is provided via an alternate method (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution, List of authors), {{Copied}} isn't necessary. It is helpful, and a link (diff for Help:Dummy edit, page link for Talk page section) would be useful. I suggest adding a parameter that displays a link and suppresses the "must not be deleted" wording. Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Original:

Text from Jennifer Mui was copied into Mercenaries 2: World in Flames with this edit. Jennifer Mui now serves to provide attribution for that content in Mercenaries 2: World in Flames and must not be deleted so long as Mercenaries 2: World in Flames exists. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see this history.

Proposed draft:

Text from Jennifer Mui was copied into Mercenaries 2: World in Flames with this edit. For attribution, please see this edit summary. To access older versions of the copied text, please see this history.

The attribution link can be an edit summary or a permanent link to a list on the Talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

  1. Parameters to specify oldid – both to_oldid and from_oldid: Links can be generated from them (example: {{talkarchivehist}}), currently specified manually in diff.
  2. Create a maintenance category for incompletely specified tags. I think that these tags are better incomplete than incorrect (easier to detect), but best would be a bot-generated list flagging both.

Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I implemented both the oldids and Category:Copied uses without oldid. I'm planning to work through the category slowly. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
If you want people to use these instead of the full url diff, please describe them in the documentation. DES (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Updating the documentation is on my to do list, but not the highest priority. Flatscan (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I listed the category for renaming at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 28#Category:Copied uses without oldid. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The template is too difficult to use

I gave up trying to figure out how to link the diff in an article created by a split. This is the best I could do. Please make this more user friendly if you want this to be used. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The article should treat the lack of "to" parameter as defaulting to the current article. That should be easy. Similarly, lack of diff parameter should default to the "article's creation" diff. An auto note could be added saying that those are autofilled as the editor adding the template have not specified anything else. I guess that the template could look at the date of the diff, seek the closed date in the from article, and add it too, if needed. I was surprised that the template required me to fill this automatically; it seems like "bot work". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the template was created to go on both the originating and the destination article, so autofill could be an issue. I'll leave that to more experienced coders to answer. :) We used to have different templates for each: {{merged-to}}, {{merged-from}}, {{Splitfrom}}, {{split-to}}. (Not that they aren't still there and in use, but I think this one is probably overtaking them.) When it came time to make a template that could be used for any ol' copying (since none of those work for taking a paragraph from one article and pasting it into another), I tried to make one template that could be used in all copying situations on any page to simplify the process. It's gotten a little bit more complex since then, with the addition of the "from old id" parameter, but I have to admit I frequently ignore that on the grounds that people can figure that out by the diff of insertion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that a simplified template may be a good idea. It would be easy to place, intended for later population by an experienced user or a bot. Help talk:Merging#Deprecating merged-from and merged-to is a recent discussion. The most difficult problem is identifying that text was copied between two articles – once a pair is identified, it's possible (albeit tedious) to comb their histories. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

talk parameter

The talk parameter was added recently to match {{merged-from}}. I disagree with this addition. Since {{Copied}} is meant for use on both source and destination, half the templates will display bolded non-links. Both the templates on Talk:History of Poland are examples of this. I think that it adds clutter to an already lengthy template. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:117Avenue fixed the self links (diff). Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for rewording

I recently used the {{Copied}} template. It took me a while to work out what the text meant. It does actually make sense (I think) but would be easier if the sentence:

[[{{{from}}}]] now serves to provide attribution for that content in [[{{{to}}}]] and must not be deleted so long as [[{{{to}}}]] exists.

was replaced with:

[[{{{from}}}]] now serves to provide attribution for that content in [[{{{to}}}]] and [[{{{from}}}]] must not be deleted so long as [[{{{to}}}]] exists.

(I have put the addition in bold; this boldening would be removed.) Does this addition make sense to people? HairyWombat 02:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm weakly against the proposed insertion. The template is long enough as it is, and repeating both from and to is redundant. A user with questions should follow the link to WP:Copying within Wikipedia for the full explanation. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Expansion to take multiple sets of arguments

User:Zappernapper expanded this template to take multiple sets of arguments, similar to {{Old AfD multi}}. It seems too similar to {{Copied-multi}} – which is not transcluded anywhere. I prefer {{Copied multi}} (based on {{multidel}}), as it is a container that holds arbitrary entries: copying or merging, in either direction. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Copied-multi}} might be better named {{Copied-multi-to}}, as it takes a single from and multiple tos. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted pending discussion. I'd like to know the benefit of this. Perhaps he was unfamiliar with existing alternatives? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
i was familiar with the alternatives existing, the code seems similar because this was an essential merge of the two. i would prefer {{copied multi}} vs. "copied-multi" too b/c that template was kinda crappy. so i'm taking the idea and fixing it. nesting vs. multi-value templates is another discussion, and many exist alongside eachother. Current usage, or non-usage, of a similar but incomplete template doesn't have any bearing on the merits of this one's use.
Benefits
  • forgo needing two seperate templates that do the same essential job.
  • my changes provide for placement on both source and destination pages, and eliminate repetitive input of file names. For example, 
    {{copied| to = Foo | to2 = Bar}}
    placed on the source page correctly identifies the source page in references. The same is true when the template is placed on a destination page.
  • The template eliminates the need to enter duplicate diffs, id numbers, page names. Compare how much text was needed between the two versions, 2.5 extra lines per entry - diff.
  • My version prevents following redirects in non-IDed references.
  • Collapsible.
Ideally, there is a way to duplicate these benefits with the nested template, but I just did this yesterday. I should have updated the Documentation, but this took quite a while and since there was no breakage of existing transclusions, I figured it could wait a day or two. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest in this area. I prefer the old single {{Copied}} and the nested {{Copied multi}}, but I'm open to discussion. Comments on some of your benefits:
  • While inferring parameters based on page name and duplication saves human effort in one template, those savings are a wash when the templates are considered in pairs. When I do {{Copied}} tagging, I populate and preview on the source page, then copy to the destination page without any modification.
  • It is my personal preference that copying and integration from multiple articles be done with a separate edit for each action. I find it much easier to track content when I can consult precise diffs. This would preclude oldid reuse.
  • Using {{no redirect}} is an improvement, with the minor costs of altering the link's appearance and interfering with Special:WhatLinksHere. It could be switched based on a merged flag similar to {{Copied multi/Copied}} (diff), but that doesn't account for later redirecting.
Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
That is my practice as well, and I agree with the benefits of using the same template on multiple pages. So, for example, with the merging into Callosciurus, I was able to document the merge at the talk page of the articles, too, thereby diminishing the risk of inappropriate deletion and loss of attribution. (For example: Talk:Ear-spot Squirrel.) Too, {{Copied multi}} allows copying on multiple dates so that they can all be within one box rather than several (cf. the current Talk:Callosciurus and the old version). In some subject areas, this is important, as content routinely moves back and forth. (Ideally, merging should be done in multiple diffs in order to provide clear attribution. As it stands, the history here does not meet the minimal attribution requirement of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia--"At minimum, this means a linked edit summary at the destination page". The template on the talk page is supplemental and does not replace this linked edit summary.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
it sounds like you guys haven't even tried using the template... and are passing judgment based on your preferences (the actual word 'preference' was used in both the opening argument against the template and in the rebuttal). just b/c u use the template one way, and thus gain no benefit, doesn't mean other people wouldn't. named parameters can still be used, so it doesn't affect you. you switched it after a day, and the template were designed to be innocuous so only people watching this template would have noticed a difference, and come to say anything. moonriddengirl is right that the orginal merges on callosciurus were not done correctly, but that has nothing to do with whether the changes to this template are beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zappernapper (talk • contribs) 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have not tried to use your version of the template, but I did look at its output on Talk:Netball (now renders incorrectly due to revert). My use of "prefer" and my non-reverting are both deliberate choices made to reduce the appearance of WP:Ownership of articles. You are correct that other users may see benefits, but I think that they are outweighed by the large increase in size and complexity. You could develop it as a separate {{Copied?multi}} and see if it is used. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
My reversion is part of the way things are done on Wikipedia (although the guideline does recommend that with templates discussion comes first). :) I actually switched it as soon as I noticed the changes so that we could hold this discussion. I agree with Flatscan about the increase in size and complexity of the changes to the template, and I do not believe we should be increasing the size and complexity when we have a perfectly usable and more appropriately flexible system in {{Copied multi}}. I don't think any benefits outweigh the costs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
size and complexity seem to be moot points since this actually reduces the number of bytes on a page that would otherwise use copied-multi (this edit shows a difference of 1300 bytes, the overall savings across a handful of articles quickly overtakes the new size of the template here), reduces the need for a different template, and can actually take less arguments than the previous version. we're jumping to different points after i respond to the previous ones, meaning that you either agree with me, or are ignoring what i'm actually saying. needing this much discussion for changes to a template that had basically no reader-side effect on previous uses is a waste of time, and is a lot of why casual editors have become frustrated with wikipedia.
to reiterate - your personal preferences, or how you use the template are not arguments against my changes, b/c you do not "own" the template, and you can still use the template how you used to. your new concerns about size and complexity are unfounded because bytes are saved by using this versus your preference, and client-side is actually simpler to use, or at least identical. please either respond to these points or undo your changes, but do not add new objections which just create tangented discussion. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 22:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not intend to move the goalposts on you – the size and complexity increases were always the core costs that I considered, but I failed to state that. The problem with size/complexity is that {{Copied}} becomes more difficult to debug and maintain. Maybe you have a handle on it, as its author, but I'm having trouble keeping the nested #if:s straight. A few kilobytes saved, even for each of the roughly 3,000 transclusions, is a drop in the bucket. I agree that there is a place for an easier to use template, but I think it would work best as a separate, simplified version; see #The template is too difficult to use above. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
ΖαππερΝαππερ, there is currently no consensus for this change. I am opposed to it, and it seems that Flatscan is opposed to it. This is (again) the way things are done on Wikipedia. Interested contributors weigh in on proposed changes. When there are objections, it is the burden of the contributor who wishes to change something to demonstrate the value and achieve consensus for the change.
Your changes create a system that I believe is less efficient than the current template arrangement; the two separate templates do not do the same job. While the elimination of duplicate diffs might be helpful if recommended practice for copying were different, there should not be duplicate diffs when content is copied one edit at a time. I don't think that the templates should be collapsed, myself. The point of them is to provide visible attribution. I don't think any benefits outweigh the costs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
@Flatscan debugging issues can be resolved with comments and whitespace - nonissue. my comment before about you not trying to use the template is salient to your other points about "difficult to use", efficiency, and not understanding that this IS meant to be used on both pages. I could have just as easily written a new template (or overwritten the barely-used multi template) that simply called this one, but in my opinion less templates to remember on wikipedia is better than more. one powerful template that can accommodate multiple uses is far more efficient when it comes to actual editing, it's like you trying to make a case for {{Taxobox-multi}}.
@Moonriddengirl I am unclear what statement I made, and templates you're referring to with "the two templates do not do the same job" (if you're referring to the changed vs. unchanged versions of this template, then I will reiterate that I was under the impression that nothing was changed visually in current transclusions, except for a commented out area which i was working on). how are less arguments and one less template less efficient? most of your earlier objections about using the template were unfounded b/c you could actually do all the same things you used to (with no changes in editing behavior), but your failure to test the template led you and Flatscan to false conclusions. the duplicate diffs were only one inherited value, again you may have realized this if you tried it out a bit first... or waited for me to update the documentation.
i am aware of how things are done on wikipedia... i think i have enough edits logged in that you can verify that. consensus is not a vote, and we are supposed to be peers here, consensus is about compromise, but so far all i've heard is "well I like to do things this way" coupled with assumptions about how the template works which aren't accurate. --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
We can compare the templates side by side if you copy your latest version to User:Zappernapper/sandbox or wherever. If you create it as a separate template, we can consider merging them later, like WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Template:Oldafdfull and Template talk:Oldafdfull#Merge_to_.7B.7Boldafdmulti.7D.7D Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I exported the history to my local MediaWiki instance and compared the different versions. Your version omits the sentence beginning "For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text", which is a significant change. I thought that the text was obviously shorter, but I didn't figure it out until now. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

We're starting to go in circles, so I have requested outside input at WP:Village pump (technical)#Expansion of Template:Copied (diff). Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, Flatscan. :) Consensus is about compromise, Zappernapper, but as that policy points out when compromise can't be reached, simple majority may determine (although more than a simple majority is required for major changes). I am perhaps more familiar with the changes you made to the template that you think I am, given that I replaced it in the article wherein you used it (not to mention that its still visible :)). The current system creates templates that can be placed on both originating and destination articles without need for modification. The change, by allowing multiple articles to be copied under one diff, also encourages suboptimal practice. But perhaps others will weigh in, in response to your invitation, Flatscan. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
so you're saying if that omitted text (which was only a temp problem which i even commented that i would fix in a bit) were replaced we could restore the other functions? --ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 21:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If you meant to respond to my comment above, I think it would be best if you coded it on a separate page, like your sandbox. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Examples

These are 10 placements, 5 pairs that I made a few months ago.

  • Identical parameters on both pages
    1. Copied|from=Jonny Quest|from_oldid=430949393|to=List of Jonny Quest episodes|to_diff=prev|to_oldid=430949754 Talk:Jonny Quest
    2. Copied|from=Jonny Quest|from_oldid=430949393|to=List of Jonny Quest episodes|to_diff=prev|to_oldid=430949754 Talk:List of Jonny Quest episodes
  • Omitting to, from
    1. Copied|from_oldid=430949393|to=List of Jonny Quest episodes|to_diff=prev|to_oldid=430949754 Talk:Jonny Quest
    2. Copied|from=Jonny Quest|from_oldid=430949393|to_diff=prev|to_oldid=430949754 Talk:List of Jonny Quest episodes

Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I can only describe this as a bug

At Talk:Barratry (admiralty law), there is a bug with this template. The oldid is not listed in the template, so when you click on this edit, it instead links to the most recent revision. This, of course, is the wrong revision, and this behavior is anti-intuitive and doesn't make any sense. If the oldid isn't listed, the text with this edit should simply be omitted.

Also, the documentation page should provide instructions on how do you link to an old revision?. This is not easy to do, and I still haven't found instructions on how to do it. If this template is gonna force me to enter it, it should at least tell you how to do it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed wording

With this edit I changed some very awkward wording, not that on Talk:Justin Bieber on Twitter, it reads:

Text from Justin Bieber on Twitter was copied into Justin Bieber with this edit on 27 April 2012. Justin Bieber on Twitter now serves to provide attribution for that content in Justin Bieber and must not be deleted so long as Justin Bieber exists. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see this history.

I changed it to read must not be deleted so long as the article XXXX exists, because Justin Bieber's existance has no bearing on Wikipedia's attribution policy. His article on the other hand is what we are worried about. --kelapstick(bainuu) 04:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it should be "so long as the page XXXX exists", unless this template can only be used for articles. 117Avenue (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Good points, both of you. :D I've modified it to "page". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Smashing, I found it quite interesting today when I read that a revision had to be kept pending the existence of Justin Bieber. :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I got a good laugh about that, courtesy of you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that the page, rather than its topic, is implied by the bluelink/redlink. The single insertion is okay, but I would oppose adding "the page" before every link. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Too wordy

Do we really need to mention two article names five times? Could we reword it along the following lines?

Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the explicit article links, which are unambiguous. The proposed wording of "former" and "latter" are clear enough for me, but this template already receives complaints for being confusing. I am intrigued by your removal of the last sentence. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the reason it's confusing is because the article names are repeated so many times; people usually use pronouns in such cases. The current last sentence seems totally redundant, as attribution is already mentioned in the second sentence, and accessing older versions in inherent in the concept of history. It's a case of using a sentence where a word would suffice. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Endorse change I think the text proposed is a great improvement. This is a confusing template, but not confusing in reading it so much as confusing in using it. (In fact, I never tell mergers to use this template, I always tell them to use {{merged-to}} and {{merged-from}}) I'm not sure what to do to make it easier to use, but I heartily endorse the new wording. One change to the proposal: The word history does not need to be linked, since it is already linked thru both the specific link and the diff already included in the template. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I have made the change. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Basic use

An editor removed the true basic use (meaning not history links) of this template claiming it doesn't work. It does: Template:Copied/test. I'm restoring a version that's to/from/date to the documentation page. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange that the "basic" instructions for the {{copied}} template worked for you; they didn't work when I tried them: see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Grigson&oldid=510257577. Any idea if I did anything wrong there? Or perhaps the template has some bug? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's see.

{{Copied |from=Abraham Lincoln|date=1 September 2012}}

You did just fine. It worked for Ego White Tray because he didn't follow the directions. :) He used a "to" parameter: [1]. The documentation doesn't call for that. However, I'm really confused about the template. Look at Template:Copied/test and click edit. It takes you to the last edit made to the article (formerly Uncle G's, now mine). It's completely misleading to link to the wrong edit. I'm removing the directions until that can be worked out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
It does appear to be a bug, or something that needs to be added. It needs to use a slightly different text when history links are not supplied - if the links are not there, it just defaults to the most recent edit, which it completely the wrong thing to do. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
This needs to be corrected. We should never demand that any editor use a diff or history link - this demand is likely resulting in editors not even bothering to place the template, which is a very bad thing. from, to and date should be all that is required of editors, and the template needs to be fixed to allow this. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
It is an old bug, previously identified at #I can only describe this as a bug. Logic could be written to check if diff, to_diff, and/or to_oldid are defined, but as I wrote above, it wouldn't handle malformed parameters. For example, try this malformed diff. I would prefer a separate, simplified {{Copied basic}} unless the new logic is pretty simple. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't really understand the above comments, but if the "bug" cannot be fixed, someone who does understand should change the documenation to explain which parameters are optional, and to give an example for an article which has been split. Wikipedia:Splitting says this template can be used. I think it is necessary to set diff to the url of the initial version of the destination page, and to not use to_diff and to_oldid; but I am not sure. JonH (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Change to missing oldid behavior

Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs) modified this template so that a missing oldid would point the text "with this edit" to just the article page. My first thought was to revert, but I thought better of it (after Incnis e-mailed me instead of posting here for some reason). While it doesn't fully address the problems discussed earlier, I do consider it an improvement. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I use to_diff=prev. This example produces this diff that indicates that to_oldid is the first revision. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Should this be used on user script documentation?

I noticed that User:Francophonie&Androphilie/RFPP uses this template. (I am not objecting to its placement there.)

The same situation applies to most of my own user scripts, not including cancelRedirectNo.js. (Note to self: create a proper listing at User:SoledadKabocha/scripts)

Should I add this template to the doc pages of my own user scripts? (Is there a guideline for or against doing so?) Also, does the requirement that the original script "must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists" hold in userspace? (What if one of the original authors retires and wants to delete his/her scripts? Would I need to delete my version too, or ... ?) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this is just for articles. I don't know what the procedure is on scripts. I've copied others' scripts, usually with permission, but never had to give credit for it. It would make sense to use this template, since the word "article" is used throughout. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Did you mean "It would not make sense"? Should the template be edited to replace the word "article" with something like "page" (perhaps optionally depending on a parameter?)
Back to the scripts: I already tried to give attribution in every case possible, but ... maybe I should have asked for permission first. To clarify, my common.js and skin-specific js also aren't truly copied from anything (as opposed to simply following installation instructions). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
No, this template is for articles. Nothing needs to be changed, and you don't need to use it, unless you are copying text that needs to be attributed from one article to another. This has nothing to do with scripts. I wouldn't worry about it. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The Terms of Use apply to all pages, regardless of namespace. See #Changed wording above for a discussion of "article" versus "page". However, user space is a giant mess, and no one is patrolling user scripts. (I try to watch for cut and paste userfication.) My User:Flatscan/monobook.css has edit summary attribution and no {{Copied}}s. Please continue to provide attribution and use {{Copied}}s if you feel like it. WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material applies to deleted pages including user scripts. Rather than delete your copies (or derived pages), WP:Requests for undeletion can undelete the originals or produce a list of authors to repair the attribution. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The changes made per #Too wordy inserted uses of "article". I replaced them with "page". Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 February 2015

Currently the template gracefully handles when from_oldid isn't used, but doesn't gracefully handle when both to_oldid and to_diff are missing.

The following diff in the sandbox should fix this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACopied%2Fsandbox&diff=647755100&oldid=647751775 Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wording suggestion

May I suggest that you consider changing the "from" and "to" portion of 

Text from [[{{{from}}}]] was copied or moved into [[{{{to}}}]]

depending on which article you're currently on to "this article". It would make the message a bit clearer and shorter especially since most page moves are between similarly named articles. Not sure about any technical limitations with templates, if any, but you do seem to be linking to the former article's talk page only if you're on the latter article so detection does seem possible. Opencooper (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 September 2016

Please implement the changes from the template's sandbox to avoid placing a page in Category:Wikipedia pages using copied template without oldid if the |diff= parameter is provided, as that is equivalent to the |to_diff= and |to_oldid= parameters combined (or just the latter if it's the first revision).

nyuszika7h (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe "No redirect"

Would it be a good idea to apply a "No redirect" to the links [[{{{from}}}]] and [[{{{to}}}]] in this template? Iceblock (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk page link

The transclusion of this template on Help talk:Interwiki linking has a broken link to the former page's talk page. This appears to be caused by this page's being on Meta and not wikipedia, which means that {{TALKPAGENAME}} doesn't produce the right name. I can't think of a good solution to this except to change the code to 'The former page's talk page can be accessed at [[{{{1|{{TALKPAGENAME:{{{from}}}}}}}}]].', which would allow for a custom parameter to be added for the talk page if it otherwise would display incorrectly - but that seems icky. Any thoughts? Cathfolant (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Same issue at Help talk:User style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Working on two articles simultaneously

I recently created a new article, and at the same time I added to a preexisting, related article the new content I had obtained for the new article. I was just wondering if the template always is required in such situations. Happy to use it, but it's just that I had assumed that this template would only be for situations in which the editor copies and pastes text from another Wikipedia article, and that's not quite what happened. Coretheapple (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

{{edit template-protected|Template:Copied|answered=no}} Please implement this edit from the sandbox. I inserted prev as a default value for the {{{to_diff}}} parameter when creating the URL, in order to avoid errors where to_oldid is provided but not to_diff. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. It appears I misunderstood the intended values for the template. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

MOS:ANDOR

Please update this template to follow the guideline MOS:ANDOR. This seems like a clear case where "and/or" can simply be replaced with "or" as there is no question that the possible case of "not both" is notable. -- 109.79.177.186 (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This template is for talk pages and hence MOS:ANDOR, which notes it is "for all Wikipedia articles", does not apply to it. That in itself, of course, is no reason not to follow it. I'm not sure I understand the use cases for which the "and/or" was added in 2015 (creative selection of elements, perhaps?), but I think "or" may introduce ambiguity. It's legalese, but we should not assume that readers will understand "and both" when attribution must be explicit. For that reason, I currently disagree with this change. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
We could just replace it with "Content from...", which covers both text and any other content. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

TfD edit request

Please add {{subst:tfm|Copied multi|heading=Template:Copied multi}} to the top of the template. --Trialpears (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Trialpears (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Should this template be removed?

This edit caught my eye and caused me to encounter this template for what I think is the first time. This template appears to have a serious problem when it says in the hatnote it adds to articles that one Wikipedia article serves to provide attribution for another article and that the attribution in the article providing it must not be deleted so long as the other article which relies on that exists. WP:V requires support by reliable sources. WP:RS says that other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources (see WP:NOTRS). It appears to me that this template ought to be deleted and that articles which use it need to be reviewed for proper attribution. Please discuss below. I see this as a very urgent matter. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

That's not the type of attribution it provides. This is for copyright attribution as required by Wikipedia's license. See WP:COPYWITHIN for more information. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That's probably why I have not seen its hatnote previously. Regardless, this seems to me still to flout WP:V by relying on a non-RS source for attribution. That policy objection reflects the practical problem that even though the hatnote says that the attribution in that non-RS source "must not be deleted" so long as articles which rely on it exist, nothing prevents such deletion in that non-RS source without regard to the fact that other WP articles rely on it for attribution -- leaving those reliant articles in copyvio. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the confusion here is that the word "attribution" is being used to mean two different things. For sources within the article, your description is correct. However, there is a completely different requirement that we must preserve who made each edit. This is not recorded in the article footnotes, but in the history section. When text is moved from one article to another, the footnotes are copied over, but the history is not. This banner is a notice that the history section for the old article needs to be preserved so that we know what users created the text that was imported to the new article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This gets messier and messier, and leads away from copyright license attribution. That still looks like a problem area to me, but let's put that aside for now.

  • I first ran into this on seeing This edit to Talk:Spanish–American War.
  • The hatnote inserted there says that text was moved from that article to the Monument to the Victims of the USS Maine (Havana) article.
  • I did not look at the recipient article then, I just did so.
  • This is the related article edit there. Its edit summary says (→‎History: copied content from USS Maine (ACR-1); see that page's history for attribution.) (not from the Spanish–American War article). There seems to have been an error in template usage there. Let's put that aside for now also.
  • The copied content includes, for example, a snippet saying: [...] the latter's high hull and guns mounted on her main deck made her the drier ship.{{sfn|Cowan & Sumrall|p=134}}. That leads to a problem I am about to discuss.
  • The {{sfn}} in that snippet produces a clickable footnote in the recipient article. Clicking on that produces no results because the link target is not present in that article.
  • The copied content is also present (for now, anyhow) back in the donor article (USS Maine (ACR-1)), including that snippet and the target for the clickable in the footnote it produces. Clicking on that clickable footnote there navigates to the full cite for that ((tl|sfn}}, as that is present in that donor article as a target for the clickable internal link.
  • This is an "AHA!!!" moment for me, as I have fixed a fair number of problems like this lately in various articles.

Summarizing that, copying content with clickable internal links from one article to another breaks those internal links unless their targets are also copied from the donor to the recipient article.

That's not a problem with this template, though, it's a general problem in WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution. Right now, I'm thinking that this discussion ought to be moved over to the talk page there. What do you think? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, that issue isn't due to the template, it's due to the person copying the content didn't copy the citation. I think moving the discussion would be a good idea since it is unlikely there should be any major changes here, rather better guidance on how to make sure the citations are copied over as well. Thanks for starting this discussion! Most of the article that currently have this issue should be listed at Category:All articles with broken links to citations by the way. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. See Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution, which I've just created. I still think that there are problems with the notice inserted by this template in that a Wikipedia article, being an unreliable source, cannot properly provide attribution where attribution is required. I'm not presently ready to suggest improvements, though. I'll think about that and will probably revisit this here later. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

to_diff parameter

If a range of oldids is not specified, it should assume the copying took place in a single edit, so the parameter |to_diff= should default to prev. ―cobaltcigs 01:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Major update and lua conversion

I have made some major improvements and converted the entire template to lua in connection to the {{Copied multi}} TfD. The code can be found at Module:Sandbox/Trialpears/Copied and the results at Template:Copied/testcases. Essentially the changes I've made are as follows:

  • Support arbitrary amounts of copies using enumerated parameters (from1, from2, from3 etc)
  • Change "Text [...] was copied or moved from" to "Text [...] was merged from" if |merge= is set to yes.
  • Link to a relevant AfD using |afd=

Since this is my first large scale lua project I'm a bit hesitent to implement it without a second pair of eyes so feedback would be appreciated. Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A few comments.
  • I've noticed your code uses a lot of args[x] or "" - since you are using Module:Arguments, nil arguments and empty arguments are treated the same. If you don't need to concatenate the text, there is no need to set as empty. So for regular if checks this is unnessaray.
  • You also use a lot of negative checks as in if not (x = "") then ... else ... end - conventional coding practice is to check the positive as it keeps the code cleaner. Here you first check if it's not positive (in this case, empty), then you check if it's not empty and then do the positive action. Instead of that, if (x) would work. It's much easier to read the code this way.
  • Variable declaration. Best practice is to declare them when they are used and not in the beginning of a function. One of the reasons for that is again code readability. Instead of having to search where a parameter is used or declared, they are both in the same place. It also makes use of correct scopes.
  • In addition to where they should be declared, if a parameter is used only once (just the if check), then there is no point in creating an object for it. Just use the args[x].
  • Text concatenation. Each time you do text = text .. text you create a new object. In places where the string of text is broken up to multiple parts, it also makes reading the whole text harder and finding grammar bugs even harder. Instead, use string.format().
I made a few changes based on the above, but didn't go through the whole code. --Gonnym (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Gonnym, Thanks for the detailed feedback! I will take a look at all these improvements shortly. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Trialpears Any update on this? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Mdaniels5757, my life has kind of been flipped turned upside down in the last few months making me a lot less active here. I'll take a look a this in the coming days. If I remember correctly it's basically done for implementation. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Mdaniels5757 The TfD part is done now. I still have to do some documentation updates and am planning on adding some more features though. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

A few changes

I am planning on making a few changes to this template based on needs seen when converting all the instances of {{Copied multi}} these are as follows:

  • Remove the image from the small version of the template. It is a massive waste of space since it takes up the entire height of the template.
  • Auto collapse the list if more then ten items are listed. This makes it a lot more compact and people don't need to specify that they don't want half the talkpage to be a log of copying.
  • A lot of people put a full diff link in |to_diff= breaking the template. To solve this the template should recognize if the user has inputted a URL and handle it appropriately.

If no one objects this will be implemented in a few days. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Functionally indecipherable

Like other template pages I've viewed, this one is functionally indecipherable (and I'm a former college educator and technical writer, with numerous technical certificates and licenses, including in computers!)

Wikipedia needs to fundamentally rethink, restructure, and re-present its protocols and input systems for references, tags, and templates.

Wikipedia, at present, demands FAR too much effort, on form and computer coding -- leaving precious little time for editors to focus on substance.

What a MESS. ~ Penlite (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Penlite, I'm confused, what? This template's parameters are quite simple... — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 19:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

~ Penlite (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC) ~ Penlite (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC) ~ Penlite (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Creation and Maintenance Details

I've been inserting {{copied}} to record the complete or partial copying of articles, templates. modules and documentation from the English Wikipedia to an incubator wikipedia and to the Thai Wikipedia, and from the English and Thai Wikipedias to an incubator wikipedia. For simple copying where the pages have ASCII names, one can create the new template invocation in a file by the simple process:

  • Copy URL of the last change prior to copying from the history to the file.
  • Copy URL of the change creating the copy from the history to the next line of the file.
  • Reduce the two lines to one invocation of the template. Prefixes like ':en:', ':th:' and ':incubator:' can be used to indicate the page in another project.

This process has a fairly low error rate. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The first issue arises with non-ASCII file names. The non-ASCII characters are represent by the hex code of the UTF bytes. These do seem to work when viewed the rendered template instance, but:

  • There are odd cases when what is displayed is the hex code of the UTF bytes.
  • Editing these template invocations in the future is going to be difficult.
  • Replacing hex codes by the names of the pages seems to be error-prone.

Is it possible to use the #subst mechanism to convert the hex codes of the UTF characters back to UTF? --RichardW57 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Where are the steps to be taken when 'moving' either source or the destination recorded? Have they indeed been documented? How are they enforced? There is an unanswered section #Maybe "No redirect" that suggests that changing names of source or definition should be prohibited. However, it seems unreasonable that copying a file from the English Wikipedia to an incubator Wikipedia should prevent its being renamed, and if a length chunk of an article is copied for translation, will not the translation be done while the article is in user space? A translation can take days or weeks. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Are admins trained in how to handle notices published via {{copied}}? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardW57 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:COPYRIGHT of interest to this template

Please see the discussion at WT:COPY#Attribution in a case of deleted history from a cross-wiki translation for a case which may possibly affect the documentation or coding of this template. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Mistake in documentation?

I am finding the instruction for basic use 

{{Copied|from=|from_oldid=|to=|to_diff=}}

seems wrong. I think it should read 

{{Copied|from=|from_oldid=|to=|diff=}}

which works for me. The change was made here Thincat (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Maintenance Actions when Source Page is Renamed

For the case of {{tlg}} being renamed, the notice placed in its talk page is still accessible and and almost functional at Template_talk:tlg if one allows the redirection to Template talk:Template link general: {{copied|from=Template:Tlg|from_oldid=790785155|to=:incubator:Template:Wp/nod/tlg|to_diff=4245590}} yields

For the case of {{tlx}} and {{tlx/doc}} being renamed, the notice placed on its talk page is still accessible and almost functional at Template_talk:tlx if one allows the redirection to Template talk:Template link expanded: {{copied|from1=Template:Tlx|from_oldid1=821674175|to1=:incubator:Template:Wp/nod/tlx|to_diff1=4241206 |from2=Template:Tlx/doc|from_oldid2=780763309|to2=:incubator:Template:Wp/nod/tlx/doc|to_diff2=4241689}} yields

With both formats, the problem is that the three history links link to the history of the redirections, so do not provide attribution for the actual templates and documentation. What should be modified to fix this problem:

  • Should the module Copied be modified?
  • Should the notices be modified to use the new names? Modified, they would yield

Please advise. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:ANDOR

Please modify this template to comply with MOS:ANDOR (see also MOS:SLASH).

Specifically that means change the phrase from
X: "Text and/or other creative content from"... to
Y: "Text or other creative content from"...
(optionally, if you really believe there was every any ambiguity necessitating the use of AND/OR you could instead change it to:
Z: "Text or other creative content or both from"... ). Ignore my use of italics, they're or emphasis and to highlight the specific change.

There is no need to for this template (or any other page) to ignore the Manual of Style guidelines MOS:ANDOR when it could simply write with a bit more clarity. -- 109.79.171.255 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

The changes at Module:Copied/sandbox in regards to using "prev" as a default for to_diff and "next" as a default for to_oldid should be copied over to Module:Copied.

Right now the default that is provided is for to_diff, is "prev", which is wrong. Since to_oldid represents the ID of the revision before the content was copied, to link to the diff where the content was added, to_diff should be set to "next" as the revision with the content being added would be the next revision. When only to_diff is provided, to produce the right diff link, to_oldid should fallback to "prev".

See the first three testcases here Template:Copied/testcases, when to_diff is removed the current template links to the diff before the diff where the content was added, but the sandbox version links to the correct diff. When to_oldid is removed, both templates link to the correct diff, but the sandbox specifies oldid=prev, whereas the live template doesn't. – BrandonXLF (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 19:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Basic has nine parameters

Faced with nine parameters for basic usage, I think that many people will be discouraged from using this template at all.

Couldn't we have an "ultra-basic" or "absolutely minimal" example with just 'from' and 'to'? or 'from' and 'to' and 'date'? Last time I tried, 'from' and 'to' were the minimum that made sense. This would encourage more usage, IMHO.

This is a proposal for the documentation page, not for the template itself. Boud (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Copied/Archive_1&oldid=1216910982"