Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Renaming

Welcome to the Assistance reading room where Wikibookians help each other solve problems encountered while contributing to books or otherwise taking part in the Wikibooks community.

Copy/Paste Moves of Content Within Wikibooks[edit]

I have just started renovating Microsoft Office. I have added some code to the Windows Basics subpage, but I now want to move some of that content to different pages. I don’t simply want to move that page, as I will be splitting the named subpage into two different subpages (I’m planning on calling them “Windows Versions” and “Logging In and Out”, if you’re curious). It would seem that the best way to do this is to create a new page and copy/paste the relevant text into the new page.

However, Wikipedia has rules that restrict the use of copy/paste moves of content from one Wikipedia page to another. I was wondering what is the policy for such moves here. (By the way, if anyone has a better way to split a page in this fashion, please don’t hesitate to tell me.) Thanks!

SupremeUmanu (discusscontribs) 19:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: As no one has responded, and having researched Wikipedia’s policy on copying within the project, I am going to proceed following their rules as if they apply here. If this isn’t true, please tell me. Specifically, I will place {{Copied}} on the source page’s talk page, as required by w:Copying within Wikipedia.
You can move content freely inside the same work (if no opposition arises from the changes made, note that if the book is active or well developed you should probably post about the intended changes first). You can even copy (duplicate) content with some considerations across distinct projects or better yet if the content benefits from keeping synchronized and updated you can also try trasnclusion of the significant part or you can simply merge projects (if the source project is "dead" and not great loss of content will result from it). --Panic (discusscontribs) 06:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
… But in any case, my personal advice would be to always include a link to the source page in the “summary” for the edit. (As in: Copying contents of [[Example Book/Its section#And subsection]].) Otherwise, the text added may seem an original contribution (as per its “history” record), and thus violate the “BY” clause of the CC BY-SA license used here. — Ivan Shmakov (dc) 06:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree, adding the comment should be a no-brainer (what else would one put int as a comment) but the licensing/copyright part is not correct, the general view is that the Wikibooks project ^(as the aggregate of all projects) is a itself a aggregation of works and so site wide umbrella license exists and inside the wiki environment of Wikimedia servers licensing issue do not occur, any licensing problem may only occur outside of Wikibooks (in the segregation of the individual works, like the required attributions etc and in importing content into the project).
As for the page history capability of shading ling on copyright issue I have been for years very vocal that people that have/need/want interests in asserting copyright should not rely too much on them. --Panic (discusscontribs) 08:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I’d consider the “BY” clause to be violated if the link to the author becomes unreachable from either the history (whether directly or indirectly, – via a link to the source page) or the talk page. Besides, without this, determining authorship becomes quite an issue, which may be required irrespective of the specific license used here. So, this is more or less the way of doing content moves that I try my best to enforce at Russian Wikibooks.Ivan Shmakov (dc) 07:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Notice also that the CC is more lenient/less detailed in this respect than the GFDL but we are in agreement authorship/rights ownership should be protected and preserved where merited. This is something that sadly does not concern (or is fully understood, even in its simple implications) by a large part of the community and something that seems to not concern Wikimedia beyond protecting their own interests. --Panic (discusscontribs) 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)