Template talk:Fandom content

Template

Per the requirements of {{GFDL}} this template was copied over and modified to work on Wikipedia from the CentralWikia:Template:Wikipedia page whose contributor history can be found here . (→Netscott) 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to use it

Can it be used only for material from Central Wikia or is there an easy way to use it for individual Wikia sites? Robin Patterson (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "individual Wikia sites"? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page appearance

With the update, the box appears to have be disabled when used on non-article talk pages? The test cases page does not show a box when used on talk pages. If it is to look like other talk page attribution templates, ie. {{copied}}, {{translated}}, etc. it should have a box when used on the talk page by default (this should work for any talk page, as code copied from Wikia could be used on templates). -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The code has not been disabled on non-article talk pages, as the code scans for the word talk in the name space parameter and if it finds it it displays the talk page box. See for example Template talk:Wikia content/testcases, and because of this edit you must have found that page seconds after you posted here

. --PBS (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried purging it several times, and it didn't display any boxes. Weird that, wonder what happened. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A more important point is that placing attribution via this template just on the talk page of an article is not adequate attribution, either under the terms of Wikia's licence or under the terms of the Wikipedia guideline plagiarism guideline, so if material is copied from Wikia under a suitable copyleft licence then attribution should be placed in the article as specified in the plagiarism guideline. -- PBS (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be a problem to also additionally have it on the talk page though (so that it appears along with other attribution templates COPIED and TRANSLATED) . -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That option is still available see Category:Wikipedia talk pages with the Wikia content template. -- PBS (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Wikia licence... makes it clear that attribution should be placed in the article" : FALSE

In discussing copy attribution for material copied from Wikia (now "Fandom"), the following statement has appeared in the template documentation since 28 Feb 2014:

The Wikia licence, (Like the Wikipedia licence) makes it clear that attribution should be placed in the article...

This statement is false both for Wikia, as well as for Wikipedia. It was false on 28 Feb 2014, when this sentence was first added (see Wikia licensing in 2014, and WMF licensing in 2014), and it is false now (see Fandom licensing today; WMF licensing today). It is true that the WP:Plagiarism content guideline *does* make this suggestion, but it is not based on any specific requirement that is now present or ever has been in the Terms of use of Wikia/Fandom, or WMF, and it is made in the context of the section "#Where to place attribution" which discusses in-line attribution, not only for copied text, but more generally for where to attribute content summarizing reliable sources. That section is not specifically about copied content from compatibly licensed websites, but includes it as well.

In fact, the attribution requirements for Wikia/Fandom, and Wikipedia have hardly changed since 2014, and are nearly identical to each other, each one specifying three alternative methods of attributing text copied from their content, labeled a, b, and c on Fandom's site, and roman i, ii, and iii on the WMF site. The first method specified on both sites, is the familiar one summarized near the top of WP:CWW editing guideline, with the suggestion of adding an attribution to the edit summary of the form: Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution. The actual wording of Wikia's licensing mentions three options, and the first one is: "attribution through a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article you contributed to". The wording of WMF's licensing requirements in the Terms of use states that attribution may be made in three ways, and the first one is: "[t]hrough hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors)", which clearly underlies the edit summary suggestion at WP:CWW.

Both Fandom and WMF have two other options, neither of which says anything about placing attribution in the article. The second option given in both (b, or ii) is not *exclusive* of that possibility, but doesn't suggest or imply it, so crediting the authors in the article text *could* be one way to do it. In any case, what is clear, is that the statement at the top of this section was not part of the Fandom licensing requirements either in February 2014, or now. Mathglot (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research; I agree with your analysis of the licenses, having skimmed them independently. This page has few watchers, so a more visible page would be better. My first suggestion is WT:Copyrights, as Fandom is out of the scope of WT:Copying within Wikipedia, and I find the village pumps to be especially difficult to search. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right; I'm just a little "talked out" on the topic just now, and don't mind so much that this is stuck way off in a corner where I won't have to respond too much

. If you want to raise it someplace else, that'd probably be a good thing, but can't promise I'll jump in right away, unless there's something really egregious that needs correcting. And anyway, there are plenty of editors more knowledgeable about copyright than I am. Mathglot (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a final comment, because the sample attribution statement above that includes ...[[<page name>]]... as a link style won't work for a non-wikimedia property like Fandom. The dedicated prefix "wikia:" does work in wikilinks, so here is a better model attribution summary to recommend here, and something like this should be added to the template instructions: To link Fandom's "Amparo (New Earth)" page, for example, just do this:

Copied content from [[wikia:dc:Amparo_(New_Earth)]]; see that page's history for attribution.

which in an edit summary, would generate this:

"Copied content from wikia:dc:Amparo_(New_Earth); see that page's history for attribution."

Given the different structure at Fandom, I might represent it this way, for clarity:

Copied content from Fandom [[wikia:dc:Amparo_(New_Earth)]] in the DC Database; see that page's history for attribution.

The latter is not strictly necessary per the ToU, but perhaps just a bit clearer for users less familiar with Fandom. Given the compatible license, either of those should be fine. I'll leave it up to someone else to modify the doc page of the template to add this, or something similar and appropriate. Mathglot (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable suggestion. Adding an updated prefix for Fandom has been proposed at meta:Talk:Interwiki map#Fandom. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this discussion and placed an incorrect {{db-g12}} tag based on the documentation, so I added an {{under discussion inline}} tag. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]