Template talk:Source-attribution

Proposal to drop the postscript and alter the prescript

Changing the wording. I propose to change the current wording so that there is only a prescript and it will read

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:

This will bring in into line with the new wording on the template: {{1911}}:

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

--PBS (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Add option for sources with free content licenses

I was editing Immutable object, which contains the following:

This article contains some material from the Perl Design Patterns Book

That book happens to have been published under the GNU Free Documentation License. For such a case, I'd like to propose adding a new optional license= parameter which, if set, changes the text accordingly. For example, this

{{source-attribution|license=GNU Free Documentation License|[[Perl Design Patterns Book]]}}

should produce this:

This article incorporates text from Perl Design Patterns Book, a publication whose contents are available under the GNU Free Documentation License

Comments? 68.165.77.124 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is better if the text to your proposed licence parameter printed out as a prescript before the general unnamed parameter string, because if a template like {{cite book}} is passed in through the general unnamed parameter it usually ends with a full stop and so your current arrangement would have ". a publication..." (a lower case "a" after a full stop). -- PBS (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Changes 2021–2022

With Revision as of 14:03, 24 July 2021 the text and style of this template was:

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:

Following the change by User:Primefac for Revision as of 14:14, 12 October 2021‎ the text and style were

This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.

The notable changes here are:

1. The use of an italic font;
2. The change of "publication" to "source";
3. The terminating punctuation from colon to full stop.

The following change by user:PBS for Revision as of 20:44, 10 September 2022 This reverted the change to the text and style back to Revision as of 14:03, 24 July 2021

• This article incorporates text from a publication in the public domain:

Reverted at 06:07, 11 September 2022‎ by User:Primefac with the edit comment:

"the source should be indicated, which is why it's worded as it is"

If {{source attribution}} is used with an unnamed parameter the text terminates with a colon. If there is no colon then the text terminates with a full stop:

• This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain: A book
• This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. A book

I think this is a subtle change which can cause confusion and inconsistencies.

To compare this template with two other common templates used for specific encyclopaedias

•  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: "A DNB entry". Dictionary of National Biography. 1885–1900.
• This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: "A EB1911 entry". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911.
• This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain: A different book

I think these is important because two or more of these listings might well appear below an Attribition: line in a list of references and I think that the text of all three ought to be consistent.

@User:Primefac I am interested to hear your thoughts the three changes you introduced and on on your edit comment (copied in green above) . -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've seen this but I haven't had the time to dedicate to it. Will do so as time allows. Primefac (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Still on my list of things to respond to. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, my apologies for the long delay in replying. If we have multiple similar templates that use something different than ours, then I agree that there is not much point in keeping this separate (so I have removed the italics from this one). However, I would make the argument that the other templates are clunky and oddly-worded if we are going to be using it in the somewhat-slapdash manner we are currently using this template. Let me explain:

As I mentioned below, the source can come before this template. Saying This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain. after the source is just... weird. By saying "this source", we are specifically saying which source is being used, even if it comes first. The other templates do not need to do that because they are hard-coded to put the source at the end of the sentence/phrase. If you really want to make it "a publication" and get rid of the whole "full stop/colon" issue, then we will need to go through every use of this template and change all of the source/template uses into {template|source} uses. Primefac (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Another suggestion is to shorten the prefix even further, and keep it non-italic:

This article incorporates public domain material from "A Book"

Shorter seems better if used inline, and we don't need to specify whether it is a source or a publication, nor decide whether it should be a period or a colon. — hike395 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that there are some uses where it goes <source><template> and others where the source is in the template ({{template|source}}). That's where the whole colon/period issues comes from. Thus, if the source comes first, having "...material from" and just ending is somewhat problematic. Primefac (talk) 07:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Book does not work because the attribution may be to something that is not a book, for example a journal article. -- PBS (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe the "A book" part of their example was similar to your "A different book" in your initial post, i.e. you would insert the name of the source there. Primefac (talk) 11:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah! I see that now. The reason for "now" in the previous attribution string is that the text may not have been in the public domain previously, usually because it is now out of copyright, or because for example in the the case of HMG they changed their policy and licensing. -- PBS (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

All the attribution after the reference should be moved to in front of the reference and if the reference is in a bullet pointed list moved to the bottom of this with a bold attribution string before it as in plagiarism guideline. The reason for this is that the section WP:FREECOPYING is a compromise between those like me who think that using PD text in Wikipedia articles is acceptable and those who do not and think it is plagiarism. The compromised reached was that it was acceptable providing that the attribution was clearly viable (see talk page archives to the plagiarism guideline).-- PBS (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: I thought I remembered a different template that was used as postfix <source><template>, but I looked and cannot find it. Was it deleted? — hike395 (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC) Never mind, I found it. It was {{PD-notice}}, and it was deleted last year. — hike395 (talk)

Later -- I think it is going to be difficult to make a single template whose text works well both before and after the source. If we talk about "this source" before we present the source, and end with a full stop, the sentence is not complete and could be confusing. Can we have two different templates (or a parameter)? — hike395 (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

If we talk about "this source" before we present the source, the template uses a colon not a full stop. The issue here is that the three templates all said the same things, but one required a parameter and one was designed to come after the source, so after the merge we ended up with a template that could handle either. I personally think this is still fine, but if the intention is to mandate the template have the source at the end of the sentence I can get a bot task going to do so. Primefac (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 May 2023

The plural parameter changes "source" to "sources", but not "is" to "are". This can be easily fixed by replacing the word "is" in the template code with:

{{#if:{{{pl|}}}{{{plural|}}}|are|is}} – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)