Template talk:US government sources

To use this template, type {{USGovernment|sourceURL=http://www.....}} substituting in the correct URL. Pepsidrinka 20:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper referencing is still required

See WP:REF and other sources about what is proper referencing in wikipedia. Adding a tag saying that material is copied from a public domain website may address copyright violation issues, but that is distinct from the issue of avoiding the appearance of plagiarism. If text is copied word for word, it should be put in quotes or block quote formatting (several options available) to give credit for the actual wording to the original author, and a footnote reference is needed. If you have reworded the material, you may avoid need for quotation marks but you still need the reference footnote to describe the source. doncram (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you don't... there's no policy supporting this imaginary requirement. --W.marsh 03:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:REF? See also WP:CITE#HOW. doncram (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REF and CITE do not require that "If (PD) text is copied word for word, it should be put in quotes". Integrating 1911EB guidance (a word-for-word PD source for 1000s of articles at en-wp) with REF & CITE produces clearer guidance than applying REF & CITE in isolation. Excerpt:(1911EB)"is not copyrighted and you can copy its phrasing directly." An appearance of plagiarism is not an issue. As the plagiarism article lays the groundwork for, the distinction that would drive wall to wall quotes amounts to a community standard. It applies to creative, research, copyrighted and IP-driven communities. It doesn't apply within Wikipedia. Here, since we are being relied upon not to contribute original work, it goes without saying that everything must originate somewhere else that is both reliable and verifiable. In that context, large (attributed) sections have come over intact from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition without segregating quotes and without plagiarism being raised as an issue. For stylistic reasons, imported text must be altered. It is necessary to wikify, and retool for NPOV, to convert to unambiguous terminology, to use spelling consistent within WP, and to restructure for readability. When it involves works in the public domain, none of these stylistic improvements are driven by a need to avoid an appearance of plagiarism.--Paleorthid (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Paleorthid for your thoughtful response. This is not a full response to you, but another thought/source for the mix, which I just came across. Someone quoted this to me once, from the Wikipedia:Public Domain:

For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for whatever purpose. Proper attribution to the author or source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required to avoid plagiarism.

doncram (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. Attribution necessary: absolutely. Quotes necessary for proper attribution: no. -- Paleorthid (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first point, disagree absolutely with your second. If it's copied it needs to be quoted. If it's available somewhere, just put a link to it, you don't add value for an encyclopedia by just copying it, you make it harder for other editors to work on the article. doncram (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. That's your policy, not Wikipedia's. -- Paleorthid (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sourceURL

I suggest {{USGovernment|http://www.....}} instead of {{USGovernment|sourceURL=http://www.....}}. The simpliest and the easiest, the best --Mac (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template broke? Or is the documentation out of date.

Looks like September 29, 2022‎ change broke the template. See United States Lighthouse Service. User-duck (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]