User:Doncram/copying

Options for tagging copied text. From discussion with user MilesAgain.


 * Thanks for explaining on my talk page. I do recognize that the (NAME OF THE) tag "nofootnotes" seems to assert that there are no footnotes in an article, but what it displays is "This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations. You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations."  I felt what it displays is accurate for the articles I added it to, as they did lack at least some of the in-text citations that are needed.


 * Use of "refimprove" displays "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."  This option seems insufficient, as the source from which material is "incorporated from" is explicitly stated in the articles.


 * Your suggested alternative "citequote" displays "You should always add a citation when quoting published material, and the citation should be placed directly after the quote, which should be enclosed within double quotation marks — "like this" — or single quotation marks if it's a quote-within-a-quote — "and here is such a 'quote' as an example." However, it seems to be directed to cases where a quote is indicated but not formatted correctly, rather than directed to cases where quoting is needed.  It has to be attached to a given point in an article where a quote is needed.  The problem is that it is not general enough, it does not tag the article as a whole, and it is unclear where the unquoted copied text is located.  Besides, the editors who copied text are usually not wanting to quote anything, they want to copy without quoting.


 * I thought the "nofootnotes", plus explanation on the Talk page, was best in most cases. I still think that, I guess.  But anyhow, I would prefer you would change from nofootnotes to some other tag and provide some explanation, if you revisit any of my edits using nofootnotes, rather than merely reverting my edits.  I think my edits were more considered than you at first assumed.  Sincerely, doncram (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)