Template talk:Backwards copy

Displaying multiple authors

This is an attempt at describing what I am seeing. It looks like an error to me. Please advise if operator error in this case.

Talk:Portland, Oregon has this banner and there was a maintenance flag (green) for author= format. I tried several ways (author1=, 2, ect; vauthor=, and authorlist=) and the template either threw the flag or ignored authors (and date) all together. Attempted with only two as opposed to three with the same results. The current data in the parameter author= is the only way I could determine to display all three at once without it flagging to fix it.

If this causes confusion I apologize, I exhausted what occurred to me as a basic editor to solve the issue and felt it worth pointing out. ---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed the maintence error is affecting the banner on this article at the bottom, for an example of the issue. ---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Comparing the example banners in the article here itself, I believe the problem is if you list author2= it wants title2= and this might be linked to vauthor= and authorlist= as well. I did not test this, it is well past my realm of participation at this point. I would also note while I am here: No error flag at the top of the page when in preview that a parameter is being ignored or other problem like most templates I have worked with. Apologies for multiple posts. ---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Darryl.P.Pike: There's a suggestion at Category talk:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list#Template:Backwards copy that I'll try. GoingBatty (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Linking multiple old ids

The template output links |id= but not |id2= for cases where different versions of an article were copied. (The current output suggests that |id= is the version that all backward copies were made from, which could cause confusion.) I used the comments section for a workaround in this edit, where the oldids are linked in collapsed text. I think that's probably the best way to handle it, to avoid clutter. Should I update the template documentation to address this outlier case? I'm not sure it's worth 'fixing'. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

|authors= is discouraged

Use of the cs1|2 parameter |authors= is discouraged; I'm slowly working my way through Category:CS1 maint: uses authors parameter and fixing those citations that use |authors= with the goal of removing support for that parameter. At line 61 in Module:Backwards copy, authors gets the value assigned to this template's |authorlistn=. At line 91 the module expands {{citation}} with |authors= (line 94).

At line 95 the module fills the {{citation}} parameter |display-authors=. Use of that parameter causes this template to emit a preview warning because it is not among the parameters listed as supported. |display-authors= only works with |authors= when the assigned value is etal; numeric values (which truncate the author name-list) cause Module:Citation/CS1 to emit an error message:

{{citation |title=Title |authors=First Author; Second Author; Third Author |display-authors=1 |year=2000}}

Title, 2000 {{citation}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help); Invalid |display-authors=1 (help)

The error message occurs because there are as many ways of writing free-form name lists as there are editors who write them (which is why |authors= is discouraged...

So what to do with this template? To me, it seems that the simple solution is to remove support for |authorlistn= and consequently authors in the module (lines 61, 77–82, and 94). Then, change the documentation for this template's |author= parameter so that it reads something like this:

• author: author of the work being referred to; for works with multiple authors, provide only the first author's name and set |display-authors=etal

Without objection, I shall modify the module to remove support for |authorlist= as described. Objections?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

There having been no objection, done.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Wording of the template when an ID is provided

Currently when an ID is provided the template reads "Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication."

1. This should probably be "Revisions succeeding this version of this article are substantially duplicated..."

2. Should it actually be "Revisions preceding this version"? The point of the ID is that it's to a version that predates the other work, and that the other work has duplicated things that were before a particular point (i.e. before the ID provided).

Ligaturama (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Books?

Why is this only set up for webpages? I'm trying to flag a reverse piece of plagiarism where text from two articles was lifted and put into a book; I would like to flag the ISBN in the template, but there doesn't seem to be a way. - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)