User talk:Speednat/Archive/2013/Dec

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aargau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romans(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Traffic report: Kennedy shot Who

Recent research: Reciprocity and reputation motivate contributions to Wikipedia; indigenous knowledge and "cultural imperialism"; how PR people see Wikipedia

Discussion report: Musical scores, diversity conference, Module:Convert, and more

News and notes: One decade of Wikisource; FDC recommendations raise serious questions

WikiProject report: Electronic Apple Pie

Featured content: F*&!

Arbitration report: Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute case opens; New discretionary sanctions draft proposal available for review

Attribution header

Thanks for asking. I recently returned to the (fairly forlorn given the size) effort to rationalize the relationship between EB1911 and WP. The most recent discussions on how to cite and otherwise reference the original are mostly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica, led by User:PBS who seems to be most on top of the current conventions. You'll see that leads toWikipedia:PLAGIARISM#Where_to_place_attribution. Generally, I have placed the subheader where all or most of the article is a direct lift, or transparent rewording, of the article, although there are cases where judegmenet is needed. It's not necessary when small-ish parts of the article can be footnoted with {{Cite EB1911}}. David Brooks (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC) ETA: if you have a different idea about how WP conventions should be applied, feel free to add PBS to the conversation. David Brooks (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there might only a sentence or two or a paragraph in a much longer Wikipedia article that is directly copied from a PD source. Then all that is needed is those lines are marked with attribution. In which case there is a switch on many PD templates (typically called "inline=" that changes the prescript wording to match that of {{citation-attribution}}: "One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text ...". Obviously editorial judgement has to be used as to whether global or inline attribution is used. -- PBS (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, there doesn't seem to be an "inline" option for {{Cite EB1911}}. Is it the intention that the "One or more..." phrasing appear in the item in the References section, when the Cite template is wrapped in a ref markup? David Brooks (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DB: it is because {{Cite EB1911}} is not meant to have an prescript (hence nothing to change). It is {{EB1911}} that has the prescript. So:

{{EB1911|wstitle=A}} gives:
- This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "A". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
{{EB1911|wstitle=A|inline=true}} gives:
- One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "A". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

speednet, I hope this answer was of interest to you, but DB I suggest that if you want to ask me another question you do so on my talk page (or the project page) as it is not fair to clutter up another editor's talk page with a third party conversation. --PBS (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So in that case, if I rewrite the article using other sources then that attribution header is no longer needed, is that correct? That header is used when direct copying was done? Thanksspeednat (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No issues speednat (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the type of source that was initially copied. If it is simply PD source then yes once the direct copying is reduced to no more than summaries or replaced so that the Wikipedia article is similar to any other Wikipedia article built from summarising copyright material then the attribution templates can be removed. This is not neccerily true for copyleft sources, because they usually include in their the licences the need to display their copyleft notice in derived works, for example this is true for Wikipedia's own licence. -- PBS (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if indeed you move from {{1911}} to {{cite EB1911}} to no EB1911 source cited in a Wikipedia article, but there is a copy of the EB1911 article on on Wikisource please consider including the text via {{EB1911 poster}} (or some other method) in the external links section. -- PBS (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. But let me clarify to make sure I iunderstood. If I remove the EB1911 template due to using other sources, then include it in the more reading section or therabout.speednat (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

, but the {{EB1911 poster}} template not the {{EB1911}} template. (see Laocoön#External links for an alternative layout to the "XXX poster" templates when there are lots of sources on s:Wikisource -- NB the parameters short=x and noicon=x are helpful for this type of list) -- PBS (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]