Template talk:Copy edit section

About template

@Voidxor: Jonesey95: About this reversal: special:diff/648838720, I added this link to make the template being attributed in the context of the license terms. A link to the original work is the sufficient attribution (CC BY-SA 4.0, 3-a-1-A-i; Policy:Terms_of_Use, 7-b-i). Nobody usually provides attribution in the edit summary, thus the sufficient attribution is usually missing (technically, it might be a copyright violation). I had already informed the legal team of the Wikimedia Foundation about the issue, but they didn't replied yet. And yes, I'll raise the issue on the more global level, but some time later. D6194c-1cc (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC) Edited: 17:08, 16 February 2026 (UTC).

@D6194c-1cc: I made that edit 11 years ago. It was not a revert, so I'm not sure why you're calling it a "reversal". You had not edited this talk page before today. Overall, I'm having difficulty understanding you, both in terms of language and meaning. Would you be able to better explain why you reached out to me? — voidxor 16:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I'm really sorry for disturbing you, I copied the username of the last edit from the history page instead of the article itself. I'll edit the message. D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

By the way, what's wrong with the language? D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: The message above was addressed to you. D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The OP made this edit, which added a tiny (not conforming to MOS:SMALLFONT) tofu icon at the right side of the template, attempting to link back to the template (the link does not work for me). We do not add links like this to maintenance templates. I have no idea what licensing terms the OP is referring to. If D6194c-1cc thinks that links like this are required, I recommend asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or a similar forum if there is a need for such things. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

It was this symbol: (🛈) . And in my browser it was rendered correctly, so I supposed that it shouldn't be displayed as the tofu icon in usual cases. Your case was a surprise for me. Also, should MOS:SMALLFONT be applied to icons if icons do not represent any text and used just as icons (i. e. images)? It's a borderline case (I could replace it with the image of the same size of this symbol).

As for the consensus, navigation templates use small text letter to provide access to templates, but for other purposes than attribution, I suppose. I was WP:bold to try such attribution first, and see the reaction. Any other critics? D6194c-1cc (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:BOLD does not usually apply to template space. Please do not make any more edits like this without an explicit consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I was careful, this edit couldn't break anything in any way. :) As for the support of different fonts, it's not the point. You still can see the link and you still can see the hint to understand what it means (the icon itself doesn't provide much info). The case when an editor should really be careful is when he wants to undo an edit that fixes attribution if he already knows that this edit fixes attribution. Does English Wikipedia have a forum about copyright problems like Wikipedia:Media copyright questions but beyond media? I can't find any. D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are trying to accomplish, but it seems that it is related to a policy or guideline. Once again, I recommend that you post your question at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, if you want me to explain, I can try. As you know, each editor owns the text he publishes (in terms of copyright), but gives it to Wikipedia under the CC BY-SA 4.0 terms. If another editor wants to reuse this text (to copy it somewhere, for example), he must provide sufficient attribution to the text. For example, he can't add that text to another article without any comments. A link to the page containing the text is the sufficient attribution (because it has history page with all the authors). For example, if an editor reuses the text published by another editor, but provides the attribution somewhere far away in his own blog (like "I added lalalalala from lalalala to the lalala page"), it would be a simple copyright violation (it's not a reasonable attribution variant). Wikipedia templates contain text that is copyrighted too, but that provided via the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. So when you add the template to the page, you must give the sufficient attribution either in the edit summary or in the edit itself. Otherwise, it would be a violation of the CC BY-SA 4.0 terms. A template name is neither a link, nor an author name. For example, a non-editor reader wouldn't even know what is a template and how to get its authors. I realized this after many years of editing with the question "how can it be that for many years practically each article in Wikipedia technically violates the copyright and nobody sees that?".
Of course, only Wikimedia foundation can fix this globally by adding some tweaks to the engine, but I doubt that it will. But after I know about the problem, I must give the attribution in the edit summary in each edit that contains any templates, otherwise I'm guilty (unless I'd forgotten to do so). D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

No, I do not want you to explain it here. I want you to take your issue to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Editors there will give you feedback on what you propose to do. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Finally, I found an appropriate page: Wikipedia:Copyright problems (thanks to the navigation template on the top of the page). To start a topic on the Village pump, I should discuss the problem with those who are familiar with copyright. But as I said, some time later, I should prepare myself (it's a lot of work). D6194c-1cc (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)