Template talk:Backwards copy
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Linking multiple old ids
[edit]The template output links |id= but not |id2= for cases where different versions of an article were copied. (The current output suggests that |id= is the version that all backward copies were made from, which could cause confusion.) I used the comments section for a workaround in this edit, where the oldids are linked in collapsed text. I think that's probably the best way to handle it, to avoid clutter. Should I update the template documentation to address this outlier case? I'm not sure it's worth 'fixing'. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
|authors= is discouraged
[edit]Use of the cs1|2 parameter |authors= is discouraged; I'm slowly working my way through Category:CS1 maint: uses authors parameter and fixing those citations that use |authors= with the goal of removing support for that parameter. At line 61 in Module:Backwards copy, authors gets the value assigned to this template's |authorlistn=. At line 91 the module expands {{citation}} with |authors= (line 94).
At line 95 the module fills the {{citation}} parameter |display-authors=. Use of that parameter causes this template to emit a preview warning because it is not among the parameters listed as supported. |display-authors= only works with |authors= when the assigned value is etal; numeric values (which truncate the author name-list) cause Module:Citation/CS1 to emit an error message:
{{citation |title=Title |authors=First Author; Second Author; Third Author |display-authors=1 |year=2000}}
The error message occurs because there are as many ways of writing free-form name lists as there are editors who write them (which is why |authors= is discouraged...
So what to do with this template? To me, it seems that the simple solution is to remove support for |authorlistn= and consequently authors in the module (lines 61, 77–82, and 94). Then, change the documentation for this template's |author= parameter so that it reads something like this:
author: author of the work being referred to; for works with multiple authors, provide only the first author's name and set|display-authors=etal
Without objection, I shall modify the module to remove support for |authorlist= as described. Objections?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- There having been no objection, done.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Wording of the template when an ID is provided
[edit]Currently when an ID is provided the template reads "Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication."
1. This should probably be "Revisions succeeding this version of this article are substantially duplicated..."
2. Should it actually be "Revisions preceding this version"? The point of the ID is that it's to a version that predates the other work, and that the other work has duplicated things that were before a particular point (i.e. before the ID provided).
Ligaturama (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Books?
[edit]Why is this only set up for webpages? I'm trying to flag a reverse piece of plagiarism where text from two articles was lifted and put into a book; I would like to flag the ISBN in the template, but there doesn't seem to be a way. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Template text not sufficiently explanatory
[edit]The template currently reads "This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:"
This sentence reads needlessly formal, including the usage of the passive form. How about the text actually explaining why readers should not flag the article in a friendly and direct manner?
For example: "This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:"
CapnZapp (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Implemented. CapnZapp (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)