Talk:Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing

Article re-write and disconnection from history

There used to be an article called "Marketing of electronic cigarettes" (talk, last version slightly earlier version), which I created. Numerous editors, including QG, worked on and debated the content from May 2018 to August 2019. QuackGuru simultaneously repeatedly (indirectly) sought to delete the article, and eventually got consensus for replacing it with a redirect on the 18 of August.

On the 7 September, ‎QuackGuru created this "Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing" article, apparently using a draft QG had developed in private before proposing the redirect.

The new article, while heavily re-written, seems to me to be sufficiently derivative of the old one that the history of the old article and its talk page should be retained in the new article. Are there any objections to this? Cunard, could the histories be simply spliced together, since they don't overlap in date?

I raised this with QuackGuru

on QG's talk page, saying: Hi, QuackGuru. I've been away for a bit; could you please explain to me what happened at Electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid marketing? It looks like an heavily re-written version of the old Marketing of electronic cigarettes article, with the name re-scoped to match the content scope. Indeed, all of the titles that redirected to that article seem to redirect to the new article. However, the page has not been renamed; I cannot find the history of the old article anywhere.[now found] HLHJ (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC) QG replied on my talk page, saying: There was no re-written version of the old Marketing of electronic cigarettes article. I created a new article from scratch. There was consensus to redirect the article you created. You also copied content from the e-cig article. That content from the e-cig article was rewritten by a former smoker. Sourced content was replaced with failed verification content. I restored the sourced content recently. QuackGuru (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't imagine serious dispute over the scope change (the new-title scope had been used for the original title, unopposed). The titlechange is trivial. I don't think anyone raised objections to the draft content except QuackGuru, who refused to move it into the article when Chumash11 suggested this during the redirect discussion. So now I'm not sure why we went through a formal process here.

QG, could you please give a link to your draft? It was at User:QuackGuru/Sanx during the redirect discussion, but the page seems to have been deleted and re-created and now deleted again, removing it from the history. HLHJ (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Related discussion on my talk page, including these responses by QG:

There was no re-written version of the old Marketing of electronic cigarettes article. I created a new article from scratch. There was consensus to redirect the article you created...[4hrs]... The new marketing article is not a derivative of any other marketing article. The edit history of a redirected article should not be merged with a different article. The edit histories of different articles should not be spliced together. The talk page is used for improving the marketing article. Comments that are not about improving the article should not be posted on the talk page of the new marketing article. QuackGuru (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The new article seems derivative of the old one to me, QuackGuru. Certainly the topics are not noticeably different. I don't see any strong argument against splicing the history; at worst, it's not necessary to avoid copyvio. In either case it gives editors easier access to the history of the page and discussions on the topic, which may be helpful for future work on this article. HLHJ (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The copied content was from the Electronic cigarette article. The histories of different pages should not spliced together for no good reason.

This article is not a derivative of the old one and this is the wrong forum to discuss this. I recommend this thread be closed. QuackGuru (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, we have a simple direct disagreement there. We need third-party opinions. Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems might be suitable, or Cunard or JJMC89 could be asked for a view. I think it is better to discuss this here than on my talk page, because I am advocating a change to this article. HLHJ (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You have not given any valid reason to merge histories of different pages. You can't take credit for creating this article by having a history merge. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have given these reasons:

• avoids copyvio, as I think the work derives from the work of previous editors (including some work which had been deleted from the old article).
• "gives editors easier access to the history of the page and discussions on the topic, which may be helpful for future work on this article"

I couldn't care less about article creation credit. It hadn't occurred to me. Absent your preference, I'll post this to the copyvio page, and see what they say. HLHJ (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

There was no copyvio. This article was not the work of previous editors from any other marketing article. It would not help for future work on this article when the redirected article had nothing worth merging. It is also against consensus to restore off-topic content. The only copied content was from the Electronic cigarette article. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sure you wrote all the sentences yourself, but the article content still has similarities. For instance:

• the headings parallel those used in earlier versions of the article, including sections whose deletion you had supported.
• I selected a WHO quote and put it in a quote box; you've used that same quotebox.
• The selection of sources and statements, even if you have managed to paraphrase all the statements, contains a set of sources and statements very similar to that in the old article.

I am not requesting that you change the content to eliminate these similarties or others. That would worsen the content. There are also other reasons for the history splice, even if it is not needed to avoid copyvio.

For instance, the consensus was not that "the redirected article had nothing worth merging" but that "There is a consensus for a selective merge" (albiet not a merge to this unanticipated new article). The closer stated that all those participating in the discussion should discuss what and how much to merge. I'll be happy to do that after the article history is sorted. HLHJ (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

A similar heading or the name of a section is not copyrighted work. For example, other articles use the words celebrity product endorsements. I selected two WHO quotes. Numerous articles use quote boxes. A quote box is not copyrighted work. I formatted all the sources myself. I wrote almost all the content myself except for some content copied from the Electronic cigarette article. I put in the edit history and talk page that content was copied from Electronic cigarette in accordance with WP:COPYWITHIN. Most of that content I copied from Electronic cigarette was written by me. You copied content from Electronic cigarette but you did not acknowledge you copied content from Electronic cigarette in accordance with WP:COPYWITHIN. I added the attribution in accordance with WP:COPYWITHIN. Any real similarity is the content you copied that other people wrote from Electronic cigarette. "There is a consensus for a selective merge"[1] was not about merging content into a new article. It was about merging content into the nicotine marketing article. I already merged content into the nicotine marketing article. This talk page is the wrong venue for discussing a selective merge. The allegation of a copyvio is unfounded. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not asserting that the article is copyvio, but that a history splice would avoid the risk. Copyright can reside in the selection and arrangement of content. As I have said to you in the deleted talk page, I was not aware of talkpage copywithin template at the time, though I had given credit in my edit summary. Please don't mudsling.

The talkpage copywithin templates are designed to preserve credit-giving by preventing article histories from being deleted when that would break edit-summary references to other article histories. When an article is deleted or redirected and then recreated without its original history, any copywithin templates pointing to the old article history would incorrectly point to the new article history, thus failing to give credit (and correct date of first publication). This seems to me like a good reason for a policy of not severing the history by article removal and resurrection, even in the draftspace.

Also, when a discussion refers to a draft existing on a certain date, I'd like to have a page history to refer to. HLHJ (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The selective merge is over. It was done when the pseudo-article was redirected. I merged content on 18 August 2019 that was a quote from a 2014 review. I object to adding any content from the redirected article to this article. Part of the reason the article got redirected was your refusal to allow me to cleanup the article. For instance, I tried to clean it up but then I got partially reverted.

You are not asserting that this article is copyvio. Then you have no argument for merging the history. It would be misattribution for a history merge and thus a violation of copyvio. Two articles about one topic are bound to have similarities, but that does not mean there was any copyvio.

Why do you want a page history to refer to? For what purpose? A deleted draft is irrelevant to this discussion. This is getting weird.

You claim you gave credit to content from the e-cig article in the edit summary of the now redirected article? When was that done? QuackGuru (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the issues in your previous comment in my previous comments, and I want to stay focussed. I got no response at the copyright page, so I've re-posted at the undeletion page. HLHJ (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Rename to "Marketing of electronic cigarettes"

Hey all, this title is pretty unwieldy. Anyone opposed to "Marketing of electronic cigarettes"? An article by that title existed until summer 2019 and was merged into this one. I propose we return to the simpler title! Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)