Wikipedia talk:Transwiki attribution

Other Templates

I had an editor ask me today why we don't use the {{Wikipedia}} template to attribute pages and I really didn't have all that good an answer. Does anybody know why?--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 04:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the attribution requires the source URL (permalink) and the last revision. (the permalink provides both) Jon@talk:~$ 04:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Add wording about checking categories

Many transwikied articles end up with a lot of redlinked categories. I'd like to add an item to the list of things to do when importing. It would be worded something like this:

Look at the categories the imported article is in. If the categories don't exist on Simple English Wikipedia, change them to the categories used here.

Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Transwiki import tool

Quote: "You can do this manually, or with a transwiki import."

Could we have 'transwiki import' hotlinked somewhere useful, please? I searched, but I can't find a 'transwiki import' tool in Simple Help. ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(I responded on your talk page) I tried to clarify it... tell me if it's clear now. πr² 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, it's much clearer now. ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Attributing content from other Wikimedia projects

How should a user attribute content from another Wikimedia project? This page provides instructions on how to attribute content from English and non-English Wikipedias, but not content from English or non-English Wiktionary, for example. It seems closer to {{based on}} than {{translated page}}. But neither template works if you add a parameter for another project. I've started a new sub-section in the Instructions section: "Content from another Wikimedia project". Any advice would be much appreciated. In the meantime, I'm making notations in my edit summaries along with comments in regular, non-templated wikitext on article talk pages. Thanks, Msannakoval (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I will make edit summary notations in addition to noting attribution on the talk page by adding attribution templates as per the instructions at Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution). Sorry I forgot to say that in my first post. Msannakoval (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Wiktionary has attributable content. If all you're doing is duplicating a Wiktionary entry, that's probably a dicdef (dictionary definition), which isn't enough for an article. Other projects (such as Wikivoyage) have different types of content that may not be encyclopedic.

Aside from that, this page is Wikipedia policy. Please don't add new "stuff" without approval. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Auntof6,

Sorry about that. :) I didn't think that this change would be controversial. It was meant to help other and was added with good intentions. When I came to this page looking for information and didn't find it, I thought I'd help {{sofixit}}. Going forward, I will make sure to suggest any ideas I have about improving policy pages on the talk page and not make them until there is consensus. Is it okay to add information to other help pages that aren't policies?

Regarding attribution, that's a good point about the dicdefs and I appreciate the reminder. As a teacher/librarian, I was a broken record about citing sources and giving credit. Even if it's just one sentence, acknowledge the person who wrote it. Otherwise, it feels dishonest, like stealing or cheating. On English Wikipedia, there is a template for doing this: Template:Interwiki copy. What do you think about importing it here? I presume there'd probably need to be some language changes. If policy pages are simpler here, template pages must surely be too.

In the meantime, to properly attribute encyclopedic information from other Wikimedia projects, I'll provide a direct link to the original material in the edit summary, which is what it says to do in the editing guideline on English Wikipedia: en:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from other Wikimedia projects. It might be helpful to have a similar statement on the page. Perhaps you'd consider having a "Content from another Wikimedia project" section with a simple note about direct links in edit summaries?

Sincerely yours, Msannakoval (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is OK to change other help pages that aren't policies or guidelines. You could still ask for input if you want, because sometimes it seems that there is a lot of unwritten stuff here and we might be able to guide you in specific areas.

That template looks useful. I just imported it for you! Let me know if something doesn't work right.

We can discuss adding something about using links in the edit summary for attribution. I think I remember a discussion here about how a note on the talk page of an article is preferred, but I'm not sure. I'll drop a note at WP:Simple Talk inviting people to reply here if they have any input. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Auntof6,

Thanks so much for getting back to me about this! And thanks for importing Template:Interwiki copy! I've already applied it, and it works and looks great! :) You can compare the appearance before and after at Talk:Pleasure.

Thanks for asking about this at WP:Simple Talk#Transwiki attribution: note on talk page vs. link in edit summary. I replied there explaining that, unfortunately, I was unclear in my original inquiry, and that may have caused some confusion. I only mentioned giving attribution in edit summaries. I should have caveated that this would be in addition to, not instead of, the talk page method. Sorry about that. I've amended my first post above. Hope that helps.

Thanks again, Msannakoval (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If attribution info always needs to be on the talk page, then I don't think we need anything in the policy about edit summaries. We like to keep all things simple here, not just the language, and it's enough to describe only what is required. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Auntof6. I understand. Keeping things simple is helpful. :) Msannakoval (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it is sufficient to put attribution in edit summaries, and we have certainly not agreed that before.
We agreed that attributions go at the top of the talk page for pages based on articles in other wikis. The main idea is to identify which particular version of the source page was used. The page Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution offers three versions, one of which is for translations from other languages.
It is not necessary IMO to get too obsessive, because existing legislation and legal practise permits minor copying without attribution. It is not necessary to identify which sections of the original version were copied. In practise, I rewrite almost everything, and almost never bring over a whole article. I would not be able to identify details like that.
Note for newcomers: attribution is quite different from sources. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources in themselves. Like any encyclopedia, they rest on sources written by persons expert in the topic in question. Both attribution and reliable sources are required for articles on WP, simple or otherwise. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Macdonald-ross, You are absolutely correct. It is insufficient to put attribution only in edit summaries. I'm sorry my intentions there were unclear. I did say that I would make edit summary notations along with talk page attribution, and I most certainly continue to do so. I really appreciate you saying that we needn't be too obsessive about this, and I'll try not to be. :) We have more than enough options for attribution now — thanks to Auntof6 for importing Template:Interwiki copy. We also have even better information for newcomers now on the difference between sources and attribution — thanks to you for clarifying and elaborating on that. Those were great points. All the best, Msannakoval (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I prefer placing the attribution on the talk page and do believe this is correct. I am commenting here because I just placed a Twinkle message on a talk page today and it says: "If that is indeed the case, please make sure you add some form of attribution, either in your change summary or on the article's talk page.". If you click through to the 'attribution' link, it brings you to Copyright, the section on Moving things from other Wikipedias. Which is even vaguer in where it goes: This says: "You can do this by writing in your edit summary where you have copied the work from. You can also add a note in the article or on the Talk page". And today, I just brought over an infobox with mention in my edit summary. I think I sometimes do that for just a source...I think we have talked about this several times, but it has been left up in the air, that really either is okay, as long as a proper mention is given. Fylbecatulous talk 16:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Does it say somewhere that attribution for other Wikipedias can be in the article? I wouldn't think we want that. When I've seen it, I've moved it to the talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not, as far as I have read. My editor today accidentally placed the template on the article page. Oops, I just read what I had copied above. [[1]]: this section in WP:Copyrights does say it can be placed in the article. This is why my confused editor did so...I just moved it to the talk page and let the user know in a message. Fylbecatulous talk 16:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that attribution should be on the talk page using the template. Problem is, step 16 in Wikipedia:How to copy from another Wikipedia says to put attribution in the edit summary. Also it says: "If you forget to do this, you can add an attribution template to the article's talk page instead." I'm not sure this is the same page Fylbecatulous is talking about, which is why I mention it. At any rate it seems to need changing if we want the attribution on the talk page only. User:Rus793 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I have so botched my edits here. So I am coming back to reiterate and agree with Rus793 and clarify for Auntof6 because that was the question to me: "If that is indeed the case, please make sure you add some form of attribution, either in your change summary or on the article's talk page.". When you click through to 'attribution' (in bold), it does say you can put it on the article page itself. That statement is on an official policy page for WP:Copyrights. I mis-answered for Auntof6 and led this conversation astray. This definately needs to be changed on that policy page. My editor that I templated today did exactly that. Fylbecatulous talk 17:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fylbecatulous, I didn't mean to imply you botched anything. I simply acknowledged the possible existence of a similar page you might be referring to—one I wasn't aware of. There are many guideline and policy pages here. It's hard to be sure which is which sometimes. But you're right about the Copyright policy. That dosen't say where attribution has to be placed, only that " you must provide attribution (that means, you must say where you got it from) when using someone else's work.". Nice catch. User:Rus793 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Rus793, All is well. You implied nothing. I was saying I botched my edit, voluntarily. and I did. The more I tried to correct it the more unclear I made it. Text can be so harsh sometimes. Sorry and thanks. ツ Fylbecatulous talk 18:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of "enwp based"

@Djsasso: In view of the recent change you made to this page, should we add a note to the documentation for enwp based, discouraging its use? I had been using it, not realizing it was no longer recommended. Desertborn (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No its perfectly fine to use still. Any way you want to attribute you can. This was just reverting a change back to what was put there awhile back just for new people who are looking for a way to do it. I know a lot of people are used to the other template so they are free to continue using it. The only issue with it is that a lot of people use it wrong and don't include the version ID number. (no idea if you do or not this was just in general). Using the other template just makes it more obvious to include it so we know what version your are copying over. And I am going to be adding a category to the template that shows when it is not used so we can go back later and fix it. Can't do that with the enwp template. -DJSasso (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that makes sense. Desertborn (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)