Wikipedia talk:How to copy from another Wikipedia

Copy-editing

The page needs copy-editing. Can someone give me permission to edit it? M Carling (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You do not need permission to edit pages here. Majorly talk 21:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was also not able to make changes to this page. Please complete the quotation mark in the article here:

"started article using information at exact revision of the article used at the other Wikipedia

-Clomen Nature (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done   — Jeff G. ツ 00:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Copying whole pages

Although guidance is given correctly:

"Copy and paste the information you want to bring over (you don't have to copy the whole page if it's very complex, just copy what is important)."

I should like to see it strengthened to

"Do not copy whole pages until you have some experience." Or, "First copy the introduction section only, and work with that. Other material can always be added later."

How often do we see a newcomer bring over a huge page (say 80KB), find it's too much for them, and leave a great mass of red links, complex prose and unneeded detail for someone else to deal with? Often, I would say.

I have started about 800 pages, roughly about 500 based on enWP articles. I brought over the whole article on only about 50 or 100 of them. Mostly I concentrate on the intros, many of which are themselves long and complex, plus anything else that seems appropriate.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading this, I still think it is a big mistake to encourage people to copy whole pages when most of them have little experience of copy editing. The emphasis should be to copy the introduction first and edit that so the prose is simpler. Then, second and later, more can be brought over. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Couldn't we use both your proposed sentences? (i.e.: "Do not copy whole pages until you have some experience. First copy the introduction section only, and work with that. Other material can always be added later." Yottie ^=talk= 09:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Copying a WIKI page that I created

Hey everyone,

I am having a problem. I created two wiki pages that are nearly identical, by mistake (I apparently forgot I had two going at the same time). And now I need to delete one of them, and replace it with the other one. One of them has a title that is written incorecctly, and THAT ONE has all of the hits.

How do I do this?

Specifically, what I'm trying to do is: delete the one that has fewer hits, and keep the title (because it is correct)--transferring it to the page with the messed-up title, with all the hits.

Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmedsker (talk • contribs) 14:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Are you on the correct wiki? Your contributions page for this wiki is empty.
2. What are the titles of the two pages?

Osiris (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It appears this problem is not on a WMF wiki with unified login. However, assuming the wiki with the problem runs MediaWiki, an admin on that wiki should be able to do what you ask (because adminship is generally required to delete the page you don't want). I could show you on one of the test or admin tools wikis I help run.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

eye opening

When I started on SE WP I incorrectly assumed that since SE WP and English WP are both Wikipedia, that you could freely cut and paste from one to the other. This article is very helpful in explaining what the copyright requirements are (e.g. Attribution).OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again

It is a mistake not to warn newbies about the difficulties they may face in copying whole pages. Most of them are not competent to copy-edit properly, and so they will leave the page unsimplified. Two steps are suggested:

1. Advise them to copy first onto a sandbox page.
2. Advise them to copy only the introduction if it is a long page. They can always add more later.

Just because they can copy the whole lot directly doesn't mean they should do so. We should emphasis that if they do not simplify the page, it will be deleted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I think it should be placed in the first section: How to properly copy a page from another Wikipedia. Its clear many newcomers are not readily grasping the concept that we are not the English Wikipedia. Rus793 (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Word list

@Fr33kman: Which word list at Online utility for checking Basic English text should we be using?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You realize you're pinging someone who hasn't edited since December 2013, right? Only (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I do now. That was a courtesy for the editor who put that link on the page in the first edit. Perhaps that editor gets emailed when they get pinged, and they will rejoin us. In any case, my question stands.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Change to 16.

I tried to clarify the wording of 16. and changed it

from:

... you can add an attribution template to the article's talk page instead.

to:

... you can add one of the attribution templates to the article's talk page instead.

Please feel free to revert/change etc. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

Copy/Paste and Copyright

I accidentally copied and pasted a Wikipedia article to Simple Wikipedia without being aware of the potential copyright concern. Can an Admin assist with the delete of the simple.wikipedia entry or suggest how much to edit to satisfy the Simple standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YehudaHaNasi (talk • contribs)

Proposed change to text about broken images and templates

I propose a change to item #12, which currently says this:

Fix any broken images, templates etc., (i.e.: remove them if they don't exist here)

I would like to split this item into separate items, with wording along the following lines:

• Fix any broken images (i.e.: remove them if they don't exist on Wikimedia Commons)
• Fix any broken templates. If they are not needed, they can be removed. If they are needed, either create them here or ask for them to be imported.

Reasons: The fixes for missing/broken images and templates can be different. Missing images need to be removed if they can't be added to Wikimedia Commons. Missing templates can sometimes be removed, but sometimes they need to be created here. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Auntof6, seems like a reasonable idea 88.110.38.249 (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This would be helpful. I just deleted some broken templates on an article that I brought over from enwp. This proposed change would make things more clear. Barbara (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Like what Barbara said, this change makes the text more clearer. Splitting them apart and then saying how to fix a broken template makes more sense instead of just saying "fix them (i.e. remove them)" – Angerxiety^! 17:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

For broken images, I would suggest first checking Commons to see if there is a suitable replacement. While movie posters or album covers would be almost a guarantied no-go, when dealing with people, there may be other optional photos than the ones uses at the copied source. This can also be true of other subjects when En uses a fair use image of the subject but free images do exist on commons. Pure Evil (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pure Evil: Good idea, thanks. How about something like this:

Fix any broken images. Per Wikipedia:Image use policy, images used on Simple English Wikipedia must be on Wikimedia Commons. If an image used in the original article is stored on Wikipedia, it cannot be used here. There may be an acceptable alternate image on Wikimedia Commons. If not, the image code may need to be deleted.

-- Auntof6 (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS), @Angerxiety, @Pure Evil: Thanks, everyone. I'm going to make this change. Let me know if there are any concerns with it -- can still tweak the wording. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Major update

I have made a major update to the description and steps of this page. There were some important inaccuracies, including content contrary to the wmf Terms of use requiring attribution of content take from other Wikimedia projects which have been corrected. I cut back some bloat in the numbered steps, repeating explanations already covered better, and in more detail, in other pages that describe how to properly write an article for Simple Wikipedia. I've revamped the step covering source attribution, which was at the same time inadequate, and misleading; it is now based properly on the wmf ToU.

That said, the three examples of crediting the source are my own words; these examples are just my own first attempt at compliance with the ToU for each of three distinct situations, using as a jumping off point the single example originally given. However, the number of examples, and the choice of wording in the examples, are certainly debatable, and improvements are certainly possible.

One issue to think about, is the contrast between the boilerplate at the top about a guideline being something many editors agree on, but isn't policy, versus the ToU requirement of copy attribution, which sits above even policy and may never be ignored. I took a shot at dealing with this, by adding one sentence to the concluding paragraphs at the foot of the enumerated steps; there may be a better way to do this. Perhaps an explanatory note, although I fear it wouldn't be read, and may not lend enough importance to something that is crucial for the user to understand.

Finally, I still see room for improvement on the page, removing more bloat, improving wording in the textual portions, adding links. I would like to ask for advice on the very last sentence on the page: it contains two links to external websites that I would think would work better in an External links section, but I don't know if that is the style here at Simple, so any advice would be appreciated. But I think the page is much improved from where it was, and I've reached a stopping point and would appreciate feedback about its current state, and future directions. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot, I think what you've done is good, especially the ToU stuff, which I guess I missed out when I first wrote the page. As for the two websites at the bottom, I guess they could be in an external links section. At the time I just wanted them to be available to be useful to the editors reading the page. Thx for your work! fr33kman 01:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)