Template talk:Copypaste

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

Category[edit]

The includeonly section of this template uses this line

{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections]]}}}

shouldn't it simply be

[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections]]

instead? —dv82matt 05:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this template in Category:Copyright maintenance templates?[edit]

Displaying {{copypaste}} shows "Copyright maintenance templates" as a category to which this template belongs, yet visiting that category doesn't show it among the templates listed there. Wdfarmer (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference to WP:NPS needed?[edit]

The template's displayed message includes references to WP:LAYOUT and WP:STYLE, but it seems to me that a reference to WP:NPS would be even more relevant. Or is there a better template than {{copypaste}} to annotate sections that include lengthy quotations from published books? For context, see my usage of the template in Antichrist#Dispensational (Christian) beliefs. Wdfarmer (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Date[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Add the date by replacing with the following:

<noinclude>{{pp-template|small=yes}}</noinclude>
{{ambox
| type  = content
| image = [[Image:Copyright-problem paste.svg|50px]]
| text  = '''This {{{2|article or section}}} appears to have been [[Cut, copy, and paste|copied and pasted]] from {{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{{url}}}|a source}}, ''possibly'' in violation of a copyright.'''<br /><small>Please edit this article to remove any nonfree copyrighted content, attribute free content correctly, and be an original source. Follow the [[Wikipedia:Guide to layout|Guide to layout]] and the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]. Remove this template after editing. {{#if:{{{1|{{{date|}}}}}}|''({{{1|{{{date}}}}}})''}}</small>
}}<includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections]]}}}
{{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided]]}}}{{{category|[[Category:Possible copyright violations]]}}}|}}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
<!-- PLEASE ADD CATEGORIES AND INTERWIKIS TO THE /doc SUBPAGE, THANKS -->
</noinclude>

Gary King (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The typical date=Month, Year option syntax (manually or via {{subst:DATE}}) doesn't seem to work. Can someone with template-fu take a look?—C45207 | Talk 23:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Reword the advice?[edit]

{{editprotected}} It has been suggested at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Template:Copypaste that the first sentence of the advice be reworded to take out the phrase "original source" as this is unclear and might even be confused with legitimising Original Research. The following alternative wording has been suggested:

"Please edit this article to replace or remove any nonfree copyrighted content and attribute free content correctly."

What do we think? Is this wording acceptable/optimal? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, nobody has objected, so I guess it is OK to add {{editprotected}} to request that this wording be adopted. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. --- RockMFR 02:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This template must be deprecated at once[edit]

I'm a bit gobsmacked to find that this template exists.

Let me explain. Our content policy requires that material that isn't the work of the author must not ever be edited into an article. The action taken on finding such illegally copied text is outlined in our Copyright violations policy (WP:COPYVIO)). In extreme cases the problematic content is replaced with a {{copyvio}} template which, unlike this one, requires the tagging editor to identify the copypaste source he has identified. The article is then rewritten and the history is purged.

That this template has been used for so long has caused a lot of damage, because if now we find a tagged article it may be impossible to identify what the source of the copypaste was.

This template must be deprecated at once. Those mistakenly using a broken process instead of the ones described in our Copyright violations policy (WP:COPYVIO)) should immediately switch to using those tried and tested processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talkcontribs)

Well I don't now about that, but I am sure that linking to the freshly-minted WP:COPYPASTE from this template is more helpful than linking to the Wikipedia article Cut, copy, and paste. So I've updated that. Rd232 talk 12:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this template is for those that aren't sure if the article was copied from the external website or vice-versa? –xenotalk 12:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That's also what I thought. See the previous TFD of this template. I thought this template was used when an editor is almost sure it is a copy & paste but is unable to find the original source. Garion96 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Showing in Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided[edit]

The template is showing in Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided. Is there anyway to remove this? --MWOAP (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The way this was done, by copying the template code just without the category part to the documentation, is not a good idea, since that way changes in the template will not be visible in the documentation. Is there a better way? Debresser (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The way to do this is by using the code I proposed at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Issues. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Small documentation change[edit]

According to AnomieBOT, hard at work yesterday, the current syntax is {{Copypaste|date=December 2010|section|<url>}},
however, both this page and /doc are still recommending the classic Gregorian Calendar syntax:
{{Copypaste|January 1, 2007|...
Merry Christmas, Varlaam (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning when specifying url[edit]

I just added a warning to the documentation, that when a url is provided, it must be as the last parameter. All parameters following the url will be considered by the template to be part of the url. Can that be fixed? Debresser (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually I have been shown wrong by User:Rich Farmbrough. The reason something did go wrong on the documentation page must have been because of the {{Tlx}} template involved. I have removed the warning from the documentation, obviously. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Request[edit]

{{Editprotected}}

The category handling can be significantly improved.

Please replace <includeonly>{{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}{{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided]]}}}}}</includeonly> by {{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections{{#if:{{{url|}}}|&-#-32-;with url provided}}|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}.

Note that 1. the includeonly tags are not needed in the new code 2. "&-#-32-;" should be written without the dashes. 3. The new code removes the double categorization when a url is provided, which was superfluous and, in all likelihood, unintended by the editor who created the "url provided" category. Debresser (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but you forgot to remove the dashes from the code, as instructed in note 2 above. So I restore the editrequested template. Just until this is fixed. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, misread. Fixed. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox rework[edit]

I've created a sandbox with some significant reworking of this template. Changes include using type=speedy to emphasise the seriousness of the problem, a link to WP:CV101 as a copyvio tutorial, and a comment about deletion. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now pushed this code live as there have been no objections. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Where was the link to the sandbox? Debresser (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
In /sandbox. I usually link this for convenience, but the formal template sandbox system has been in place for so long now that I wouldn't think it necessary to link it for someone to figure where it was if not linked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
This notice must have somehow passed under my radar. You're right, of course, although linking is always best. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011[edit]

I don't understand why this template is here. I have reviewed the website and this content and there is no copy/paste infringement going on here. What is the process of getting the template removed, and how soon can this be completed. Tdpunkyb1 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment moved to Talk:Scott Tucker (racing driver)#Edit request from , 7 October 2011. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Requiring an original source to be provided[edit]

I'm often torn about the existence of this template but use it myself for short term tagging when I'm deciding whether or not the article can be saved or not.

My issue with this template is that it's sometimes used by editors who don't indicate what portion of text seems to be a copyright violation and don't indicate where they think the text has been taken from. I realize that there are cases where one may feel that the text has been copy/pasted onto WP but can't find a source but I think this template should be applied based on a "gut feeling" (personally, I think another template should exist for that).

What do you think about requiring an original source to be listed when using this template? It obviously doesn't have to be an online source that the duplicate detector can check but I feel that applying this template with no indication of what text "may" be a violation or where it came from defeats the purpose of using it. OlYeller21Talktome 20:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The template you describe, which can be applied when it is suspected that an article or section is copy/pasted but no source is available, is {{Cv-unsure}}. I agree that requiring a source to be provided when using {{Copypaste}} would make the template more useful for editors that seek to identify and rectify the problem. When a source cannot be provided, the less certain {{Cv-unsure}} can be used. --Credema (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tfd[edit]

I have nominated the template for deletion (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 18#Template:Copypaste). The {{Tfd}} tag should be added to the template. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Done Anomie 02:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Userspace page not being categorized[edit]

Any idea why the template placed on User:MKindy/sandbox is not adding it to the tracking category? Monty845 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All templates that use the {{ambox}} built-in categorization parameters will apply the categories only to mainspace pages. Anomie 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Article, Section, or Text[edit]

I feel this template needs more granularity in being able to be applied to part of a section. Instead of just being placed at the start of a section, it would be useful to place the template mid-section with text like "This Text may have been copied and pasted...". I realise the report shows duplicate text, but being placed just above the suspicious text would do a better job of warning the readers, and drawing attention to the text which editors need to address. Cheers. GFHandel   06:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding part of your suggestion, you can already do that with {{Copypaste|text|url=foo}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, except the documentation says to use it at "the top of the suspect article or section". If someone can find a way of elegantly modifying the documentation (with an example?) so that the template can be used to target specific text within a section, then so much the better; if not, then it's no biggie. GFHandel   20:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

print sources[edit]

I have frequently encountered a situation where the source is almost certainly a particular printed book, but this template cannot accommodate the situation--it only accepts urls. Perhaps the easiest way to accommodate this would be a fourth parameter. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Icon[edit]

Please replace icon with this file. --Rezonansowy (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. I've uploaded the file locally and upload-protected it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)