Computing Template‑class | |||||||
|
Literature Template‑class | |||||||
|
English Language Template‑class | |||||||
|
The indentation of the FOLDOC boilerplate makes it look unusual on some pages, e.g. Apache HTTP Server, where it follows a bulleted list. Does anyone object dropping the ':' in the template, and just adding it to those pages where it is required? -- Jon Dowland 17:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
From the template:
Why should FOLDOC be attributed on the actual page when it's contributions are no different than mine or any other wikipedian? If the content is not attributed in the page's history then it should be, at best, a reference.
Again, why are FOLDOC's GFDL contributions more special than mine to merit this template? Cburnett 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A very early version of this boilerplate message, seen here read "This article (or an earlier version of it) contains material from FOLDOC, used with permission." While the new text is superior in most ways, it lacks the implication that it's possible the FOLDOC material may have worked its way out of the article. Perhaps it'd be helpful to have a "|old" option to trigger an alternative text:
Earlier versions of this article were based on material from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, which is licensed under the GFDL.
This avoids the implicit statement that FOLDOC material is present in an article when, in fact, it may now be purely resigned to the article's history after a complete rewrite. Given the unsourced OR nature of the source, one would hope this would be a quite common problem. MrZaius talk 05:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This information is purely of historical interest and should be relegated to the articles' talk pages or removed altogether. (However, this template itself should not be deleted, so that future researchers will know what the FOLDOC template meant.) Does anyone disagree? If not, I'll change the template documentation to say this and begin the move to talk pages.-- greenrd ( talk) 23:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
@ Greenrd and Matthiaspaul: I've been working on formatting issues with this template. The template is sometimes included in the References section and somtimes just dropped in near the end of the article somewhere. I've had one objection from Stepho-wrs pertaining to my formatting "improvements". Should I really consider just removing the template? Should I let sleeping dogs lie? ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I've reviewed this talk page and the 2006 deletion discussion. It looks like we can address everyone's concerns by moving this template from the article endmatter to the talk page header. Any objections? ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
{{FOLDOC|Expression|new=yes}}
instances would have to be handled differently? I haven't seen any of these yet so it may be moot.|new=
parameter, that is, move them to the talk page. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 15:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)The discussion above, and the footnote in the documentation (added here) seem to miss something. There is a difference between normal attribution, normal editing contributions to an article, and what is required when we copy verbatim from another source. Typically we paraphrase other sources and then reference them with an inline citation. When we use material from another source directly, however, we are required to explicitly say so in the article itself. Otherwise what we have done is plagiarism. It doesn't matter whether we have a license to use the material. It doesn't matter if the material is public domain. Copying text verbatim without saying so is plagiarism. Contrary to what the footnote says, the guideline requires material copied verbatim from another source to be identified as such within the article. WP:FREECOPY identifies public-domain attribution templates in an article's References section as an appropriate way to do this. It does not matter whether readers care about this. It doesn't even matter whether editors care about this. It is a matter of principle, and a requirement of our guidelines.-- Srleffler ( talk) 19:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Inserting a text— copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes—from a source that is not acknowledged anywhere in the article, either in the body of the article, or in footnotes, the references section, or the external links section.
greenabove. -- Srleffler ( talk) 05:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Public-domain attribution notices should not be removed from an article or simply replaced with inline citations unless it is verified that substantially all of the source's phrasing has been removed from the article. When we copy verbatim from a source (even a public domain one) a citation to that source is not enough. Attribution of the text to the source is required.-- Srleffler ( talk) 03:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
In the article IBM System/360 that should use the MDY date format this template is used but this template uses there displays DMY. However: "June 16, 2009, content from FOLDOC added after 1 November 2008" in the doc is inconsistent.. Could the template add a MDY paramater (or just be changed?). comp.arch ( talk) 11:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
To be consistent with similar templates, e.g. {{ FS1037C}}, I have removed the directive to make small text. You can wrap the template in {{ refbegin}} {{ refend}} for standard smallness. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Computing Template‑class | |||||||
|
Literature Template‑class | |||||||
|
English Language Template‑class | |||||||
|
The indentation of the FOLDOC boilerplate makes it look unusual on some pages, e.g. Apache HTTP Server, where it follows a bulleted list. Does anyone object dropping the ':' in the template, and just adding it to those pages where it is required? -- Jon Dowland 17:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
From the template:
Why should FOLDOC be attributed on the actual page when it's contributions are no different than mine or any other wikipedian? If the content is not attributed in the page's history then it should be, at best, a reference.
Again, why are FOLDOC's GFDL contributions more special than mine to merit this template? Cburnett 16:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A very early version of this boilerplate message, seen here read "This article (or an earlier version of it) contains material from FOLDOC, used with permission." While the new text is superior in most ways, it lacks the implication that it's possible the FOLDOC material may have worked its way out of the article. Perhaps it'd be helpful to have a "|old" option to trigger an alternative text:
Earlier versions of this article were based on material from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, which is licensed under the GFDL.
This avoids the implicit statement that FOLDOC material is present in an article when, in fact, it may now be purely resigned to the article's history after a complete rewrite. Given the unsourced OR nature of the source, one would hope this would be a quite common problem. MrZaius talk 05:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This information is purely of historical interest and should be relegated to the articles' talk pages or removed altogether. (However, this template itself should not be deleted, so that future researchers will know what the FOLDOC template meant.) Does anyone disagree? If not, I'll change the template documentation to say this and begin the move to talk pages.-- greenrd ( talk) 23:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
@ Greenrd and Matthiaspaul: I've been working on formatting issues with this template. The template is sometimes included in the References section and somtimes just dropped in near the end of the article somewhere. I've had one objection from Stepho-wrs pertaining to my formatting "improvements". Should I really consider just removing the template? Should I let sleeping dogs lie? ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I've reviewed this talk page and the 2006 deletion discussion. It looks like we can address everyone's concerns by moving this template from the article endmatter to the talk page header. Any objections? ~ Kvng ( talk) 17:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
{{FOLDOC|Expression|new=yes}}
instances would have to be handled differently? I haven't seen any of these yet so it may be moot.|new=
parameter, that is, move them to the talk page. --
Matthiaspaul (
talk) 15:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)The discussion above, and the footnote in the documentation (added here) seem to miss something. There is a difference between normal attribution, normal editing contributions to an article, and what is required when we copy verbatim from another source. Typically we paraphrase other sources and then reference them with an inline citation. When we use material from another source directly, however, we are required to explicitly say so in the article itself. Otherwise what we have done is plagiarism. It doesn't matter whether we have a license to use the material. It doesn't matter if the material is public domain. Copying text verbatim without saying so is plagiarism. Contrary to what the footnote says, the guideline requires material copied verbatim from another source to be identified as such within the article. WP:FREECOPY identifies public-domain attribution templates in an article's References section as an appropriate way to do this. It does not matter whether readers care about this. It doesn't even matter whether editors care about this. It is a matter of principle, and a requirement of our guidelines.-- Srleffler ( talk) 19:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Inserting a text— copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes—from a source that is not acknowledged anywhere in the article, either in the body of the article, or in footnotes, the references section, or the external links section.
greenabove. -- Srleffler ( talk) 05:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Public-domain attribution notices should not be removed from an article or simply replaced with inline citations unless it is verified that substantially all of the source's phrasing has been removed from the article. When we copy verbatim from a source (even a public domain one) a citation to that source is not enough. Attribution of the text to the source is required.-- Srleffler ( talk) 03:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
In the article IBM System/360 that should use the MDY date format this template is used but this template uses there displays DMY. However: "June 16, 2009, content from FOLDOC added after 1 November 2008" in the doc is inconsistent.. Could the template add a MDY paramater (or just be changed?). comp.arch ( talk) 11:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
To be consistent with similar templates, e.g. {{ FS1037C}}, I have removed the directive to make small text. You can wrap the template in {{ refbegin}} {{ refend}} for standard smallness. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)