Template talk:Copypaste

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 December 13. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This template was considered for deletion on 2012 April 18. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Is this template in Category:Copyright maintenance templates?

Displaying {{copypaste}} shows "Copyright maintenance templates" as a category to which this template belongs, yet visiting that category doesn't show it among the templates listed there. Wdfarmer (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to WP:NPS needed?

The template's displayed message includes references to WP:LAYOUT and WP:STYLE, but it seems to me that a reference to WP:NPS would be even more relevant. Or is there a better template than {{copypaste}} to annotate sections that include lengthy quotations from published books? For context, see my usage of the template in Antichrist#Dispensational (Christian) beliefs. Wdfarmer (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date

{{editprotected}}

Add the date by replacing with the following:

<noinclude>{{pp-template|small=yes}}</noinclude>
{{ambox
| type  = content
| image = [[Image:Copyright-problem paste.svg|50px]]
| text  = '''This {{{2|article or section}}} appears to have been [[Cut, copy, and paste|copied and pasted]] from {{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{{url}}}|a source}}, ''possibly'' in violation of a copyright.'''<br /><small>Please edit this article to remove any nonfree copyrighted content, attribute free content correctly, and be an original source. Follow the [[Wikipedia:Guide to layout|Guide to layout]] and the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]. Remove this template after editing. {{#if:{{{1|{{{date|}}}}}}|''({{{1|{{{date}}}}}})''}}</small>
}}<includeonly>{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections]]}}}
{{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided]]}}}{{{category|[[Category:Possible copyright violations]]}}}|}}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{Documentation}}
<!-- PLEASE ADD CATEGORIES AND INTERWIKIS TO THE /doc SUBPAGE, THANKS -->
</noinclude>

Gary King (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The typical date=Month, Year option syntax (manually or via {{subst:DATE}}) doesn't seem to work. Can someone with template-fu take a look?—C45207 | Talk 23:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reword the advice?

{{editprotected}} It has been suggested at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Template:Copypaste that the first sentence of the advice be reworded to take out the phrase "original source" as this is unclear and might even be confused with legitimising Original Research. The following alternative wording has been suggested:

"Please edit this article to replace or remove any nonfree copyrighted content and attribute free content correctly."

What do we think? Is this wording acceptable/optimal? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody has objected, so I guess it is OK to add {{editprotected}} to request that this wording be adopted. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --- RockMFR 02:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be deprecated at once

I'm a bit gobsmacked to find that this template exists.

Let me explain. Our content policy requires that material that isn't the work of the author must not ever be edited into an article. The action taken on finding such illegally copied text is outlined in our Copyright violations policy (WP:COPYVIO)). In extreme cases the problematic content is replaced with a {{copyvio}} template which, unlike this one, requires the tagging editor to identify the copypaste source he has identified. The article is then rewritten and the history is purged.

That this template has been used for so long has caused a lot of damage, because if now we find a tagged article it may be impossible to identify what the source of the copypaste was.

This template must be deprecated at once. Those mistakenly using a broken process instead of the ones described in our Copyright violations policy (WP:COPYVIO)) should immediately switch to using those tried and tested processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)

Well I don't now about that, but I am sure that linking to the freshly-minted WP:COPYPASTE from this template is more helpful than linking to the Wikipedia article Cut, copy, and paste. So I've updated that. Rd232 ^talk 12:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this template is for those that aren't sure if the article was copied from the external website or vice-versa? –xeno^talk 12:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's also what I thought. See the previous TFD of this template. I thought this template was used when an editor is almost sure it is a copy & paste but is unable to find the original source. Garion96 (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Showing in Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided

The template is showing in Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided. Is there anyway to remove this? --MWOAP (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way this was done, by copying the template code just without the category part to the documentation, is not a good idea, since that way changes in the template will not be visible in the documentation. Is there a better way? Debresser (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way to do this is by using the code I proposed at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#Issues. Debresser (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small documentation change

According to AnomieBOT, hard at work yesterday, the current syntax is {{Copypaste|date=December 2010|section|<url>}},
however, both this page and /doc are still recommending the classic Gregorian Calendar syntax:
{{Copypaste|January 1, 2007|...
Merry Christmas, Varlaam (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning when specifying url

I just added a warning to the documentation, that when a url is provided, it must be as the last parameter. All parameters following the url will be considered by the template to be part of the url. Can that be fixed? Debresser (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have been shown wrong by User:Rich Farmbrough. The reason something did go wrong on the documentation page must have been because of the {{Tlx}} template involved. I have removed the warning from the documentation, obviously. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request

The category handling can be significantly improved.

Please replace <includeonly>{{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}{{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections with url provided]]}}}}}</includeonly> by {{DMCA|Copied and pasted articles and sections{{#if:{{{url|}}}|&-#-32-;with url provided}}|from|{{{date|}}}|All copied and pasted articles and sections}}.

Note that 1. the includeonly tags are not needed in the new code 2. "&-#-32-;" should be written without the dashes. 3. The new code removes the double categorization when a url is provided, which was superfluous and, in all likelihood, unintended by the editor who created the "url provided" category. Debresser (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you forgot to remove the dashes from the code, as instructed in note 2 above. So I restore the editrequested template. Just until this is fixed. Debresser (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, misread. Fixed. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox rework

I've created a sandbox with some significant reworking of this template. Changes include using type=speedy to emphasise the seriousness of the problem, a link to WP:CV101 as a copyvio tutorial, and a comment about deletion. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now pushed this code live as there have been no objections. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the link to the sandbox? Debresser (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In /sandbox. I usually link this for convenience, but the formal template sandbox system has been in place for so long now that I wouldn't think it necessary to link it for someone to figure where it was if not linked. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This notice must have somehow passed under my radar. You're right, of course, although linking is always best. Debresser (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I don't understand why this template is here. I have reviewed the website and this content and there is no copy/paste infringement going on here. What is the process of getting the template removed, and how soon can this be completed. Tdpunkyb1 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved to Talk:Scott Tucker (racing driver)#Edit request from , 7 October 2011. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring an original source to be provided

I'm often torn about the existence of this template but use it myself for short term tagging when I'm deciding whether or not the article can be saved or not.

My issue with this template is that it's sometimes used by editors who don't indicate what portion of text seems to be a copyright violation and don't indicate where they think the text has been taken from. I realize that there are cases where one may feel that the text has been copy/pasted onto WP but can't find a source but I think this template should be applied based on a "gut feeling" (personally, I think another template should exist for that).

What do you think about requiring an original source to be listed when using this template? It obviously doesn't have to be an online source that the duplicate detector can check but I feel that applying this template with no indication of what text "may" be a violation or where it came from defeats the purpose of using it. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template you describe, which can be applied when it is suspected that an article or section is copy/pasted but no source is available, is {{Cv-unsure}}. I agree that requiring a source to be provided when using {{Copypaste}} would make the template more useful for editors that seek to identify and rectify the problem. When a source cannot be provided, the less certain {{Cv-unsure}} can be used. --Credema (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tfd

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have nominated the template for deletion (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 18#Template:Copypaste). The {{Tfd}} tag should be added to the template. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Anomie ⚔ 02:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace page not being categorized

Any idea why the template placed on User:MKindy/sandbox is not adding it to the tracking category? Monty ₈₄₅ 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All templates that use the {{ambox}} built-in categorization parameters will apply the categories only to mainspace pages. Anomie ⚔ 17:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article, Section, or Text

I feel this template needs more granularity in being able to be applied to part of a section. Instead of just being placed at the start of a section, it would be useful to place the template mid-section with text like "This Text may have been copied and pasted...". I realise the report shows duplicate text, but being placed just above the suspicious text would do a better job of warning the readers, and drawing attention to the text which editors need to address. Cheers. GFHandel ♬ 06:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm misunderstanding part of your suggestion, you can already do that with {{Copypaste|text|url=foo}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except the documentation says to use it at "the top of the suspect article or section". If someone can find a way of elegantly modifying the documentation (with an example?) so that the template can be used to target specific text within a section, then so much the better; if not, then it's no biggie. GFHandel ♬ 20:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

print sources

I have frequently encountered a situation where the source is almost certainly a particular printed book, but this template cannot accommodate the situation--it only accepts urls. Perhaps the easiest way to accommodate this would be a fourth parameter. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Icon

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace icon with this file. --Rezonansowy (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've uploaded the file locally and upload-protected it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible enhancement

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Since the Earwig copyvio checker also works without an URL, I thought that adding it to the template (like so: <sup>([https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title={{{2|{{{page|{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}}}}}&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1 CopyVio Search])</sup>) might render it more useful; see the template sandbox for the sandboxed code and how it displays.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or like so: <sup>([{{fullurl:toollabs:copyvios/|lang=en&project=wikipedia&title={{{2|{{{page|{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}}}}}&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1}} CopyVio Search])</sup> following the example at Template_talk:Infobox_company#Update ISIN? Bazj (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Bazj: I modified {{CVD}} so that it uses copyvios without a URL if one isn't detected. Therefore, a much cleaner implementation is mocked up in the sandbox here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, wouldn't we be better off transcluding {{Cv-unsure}} if no URL is provided? We can add a copyvios link to that template. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but this template still is used for copypastes where no URL is provided. I was thinking more of helping resolve current tags rather than future cases. For the older cases, we'll have to modify this template.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to including an #if: statement that would transclude in cv-unsure automatically, something like

{{#if:{{{1|{{{url|}}}}}}|CURRENT CONTENT OF THIS TEMPLATE|{{cv-unsure|date={{{date|}}}|section={{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|section|yes|}}|copyvios=yes}}}}

. This template tells editors that they need to check the source of the copying to see if it has a compatible license, but they cannot do that if a source isn't given. cv-unsure addresses this situation. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht and Bazj: The change to the CVD template cannot propagate on the main template because CVD is called only for transclusions containing an URL. As for Cv-unsure, I presume we might add the copyvio tool link to that one instead if we put the "if" condition Ahecht proposed in.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on consensus, I can either change this template to always call CVD (as mocked up here) or implement the #if statement above. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mocked up a version that uses {{cv-unsure}} if a url or source isn't given. You can see it in the sandbox here and try out the testcases. Any objections to making it live? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reword suggestion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Currently, the last sentence begins "Please be sure that the source of the copyright violation ...", except that if the warning is accurate, then there is no copyright violation, as the "source" is actually a copy from Wikipedia. Therefore, this sentence should refer to the "alleged" or "purported" or "supposed" source, not simply "the source". ~ MD Otley (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - uncontroversial clarification. GermanJoe (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 20 August 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone please split the: | text = This {{{1|article or section}}} '''may have been [[Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources|copied and pasted]] from {{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{CVD|{{{url|}}}}}|a source}}, ''possibly'' in violation of [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Wikipedia's copyright policy]]'''. Please [[Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101|remedy this]] by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks|Wikipedia mirror]]. into: |issue= This {{{1|article or section}}} '''may have been [[Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources|copied and pasted]] from {{#if:{{{url|}}}|{{CVD|{{{url|}}}}}|a source}}, ''possibly'' in violation of [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|Wikipedia's copyright policy]].'''.

and |fix= Please [[Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101|remedy this]] by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks|Wikipedia mirror]].

, so that the template only shows the issue in {{multiple issues}}.

Pppery (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Izno (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Oops, I wanted the first part to be |issue=..., not |text=... Pppery (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Izno (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add options for second, third URL like we have in Template:Db-g12

There have been instances where copy-paste has happened from more than one source, to report such cases of copypasting, we need this option to add more urls in this template. if it's already there, please let me know how to do that. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 to its new title, Wikipedia:Text copyright violations 101 (sentence case). Per WP:R: In other namespaces [...] any link or transclusion to a former page title that has become a redirect following a page move or merge should be updated to the new title for naming consistency. DanCherek (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done firefly ( t · c ) 20:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

There isn't a {{Copypaste span}} template, is there?

I was searching for such to tag rather a large portion of a section (in a similar fashion with {{Citation needed span}}), but not the whole section.^[1]

Well, I look forward to hearing from the good people dwelling here on template dome! :-)

Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]