Template talk:Copied

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Suggestions[edit]

  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)

Copying to userspace article[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

The template is too difficult to use[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 Template: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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 02:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Basic use[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 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. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 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)

Talk page link[edit]

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)