article's talk page to add supplementary information. Shortcut WP:ATTREQWP:ATTREQ Contributors to Wikipedia are not asked to surrender their copyright to...

redirect. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Delete: Per WP:ATTREQ. Curbon7 (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Speedy delete: Straight copy...

Khan, but no attribution of the copying was provided in accordance with WP:ATTREQ. Ultimately, this draft is just not needed, because per Wikipedia:Drafts...

to this page.‎ The result was delete. Copied without attribution. See WP:ATTREQ. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC) [Hide this box] New to Articles...

originally. That addresses the bathwater without throwing out the baby and WP:ATTREQ. From there, a splitting discussion is possible. – The Grid (talk) 18:29...

also a copy/paste move according to this comparison, which violates our WP:ATTREQ copyright requirements. -2pou (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC) The above...

need this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC) @Oaktree b: - WP:ATTREQ applies here. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Keep - though I'm...

page should not exist because of authorship attribution requirements (WP:ATTREQ). The real content is present in the draft referenced above, and a mess...

the main space from this page, the history needs to be preserved per WP:ATTREQ. It should be redirected to the main space article if the requested history...

that deletion is not an option because of attribution requirements per WP:ATTREQ, i.e. the original authorship history for Gorr the God Butcher resides in...

history for proper attribution purposes per copyright requirements (see WP:ATTREQ). If deletion is to occur, performing a WP:HISTMERGE prior to deletion will...

| history | links | watch | logs)​ This seems like misapplication of WP:ATTREQ and unnecessary ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)...

Delete: Concur with arguments made above. This article also fails to meet WP:ATTREQ for the forking. I didn’t even know what Batverse was supposed to mean,...

Company into Lantern Entertainment would separate EDITING HISTORY (against WP:ATTREQ) as TWC is the longer article, @Bakazaka:. Thus anyone suggesting or doing...

policy-compliant article about it, and to preserve page history per WP:ATTREQ. And also procedural keep as the discussion here has been mostly about the...

it violates WP:NOT and violates WP:UP#COPIES (and moreover violates WP:ATTREQ; it wasn't easy to find what he copied this from). We're not talking about...

is mentioned, with the same caveat about the AfD discussion as below. WP:ATTREQ and the first point of WP:RKEEP seem to apply here, as content from Warfist...

trivial edit history, without anything that needs to be preserved for WP:ATTREQ purposes. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Delete all...

This page has been merged so the history is required to be kept per WP:ATTREQ. The existence of a draft is neither here nor there, but I note that the...

with the lower case "home game" definitely still needs to be kept per WP:ATTREQ and WP:RFD#KEEP as a result of the page merge. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:05, 14...

basis of this erroneous PROD (which if carried out would have caused WP:ATTREQ problems). Godawari Municipality was subsequently moved to Godawari, Lalitpur...

present it's the best target. This also needs to be kept in some form per WP:ATTREQ, as content from the article previously at this location was merged into...

that article is deleted some other solution will have to be found, as WP:ATTREQ would seem to prohibit deletion because content from Lich (comics) was merged...

discussion, though. As for attribution, there are several ways to do this per WP:ATTREQ. This is my personal opinion, but I don't think you need a history merge...

deletion/Windmills in the Channel Islands has been relisted a second time. WP:ATTREQ is not something that can be ignored. Whilst I sympathise with the arguments...

history. We may need to preserve those edit histories somewhere for WP:ATTREQ purposes. However, we do not need to locate them at titles which promise...

still does not address issues related to WP:PROPERSPLIT, WP:SPINOFF, and WP:ATTREQ. Is it to be considered acceptable wiki practice in spliting a majority...

it as a 'bullshit' copyright claim, that's just disturbing. Go read WP:ATTREQ, which makes it quite clear that reuse of material within Wikipedia without...

as AFAICT this is not allowed for copyright/licensing reasons (see WP:ATTREQ and WP:RUD and the section following RUD called "Userfication"), so I suggest...

Dodger67 asked me on my talk page why I had declined it, pointing to WP:ATTREQ, and I explained my thinking. Upon reflection, I'm not sure A10 can apply...

this situation requires the histories of the two pages to be merged per WP:ATTREQ but Jeffro77 obviously disagrees. It may not technically be a cut-and-paste...

anything. However, content was merged from Unbiubium to Unbibium. So for WP:ATTREQ purposes, the history currently at Unbiubium should be retained somewhere...

I created Template:Attention requested for the time being (shortcut {{attreq}}), which adds pages to the category Category:Pages where attention has...

other articles they feel are related to the topic. Besides the obvious WP:ATTREQ problem, I don't think this improves the article. But not having run across...

The history should be retained as it provides verifiable attribution (WP:ATTREQ) for past revisions of List of New Order Jedi characters which are still...

content from the other article, which is technically a WP:COPYVIO per WP:ATTREQ; so, I don't think a WP:HISTMERGE is necessary. A good place to ask about...

nominated for deletion, which was both a violation of our copyright, see WP:ATTREQ, and a blatant circumvention of the deletion discussion, cf. WP:EDITATAFD...

discussion, though. As for attribution, there are several ways to do this per WP:ATTREQ. This is my personal opinion, but I don't think you need a history merge...

history for proper attribution purposes per copyright requirements (see WP:ATTREQ). If deletion is to occur, performing a WP:HISTMERGE prior to deletion will...

need this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC) @Oaktree b: - WP:ATTREQ applies here. Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Keep - though I'm...

you ever attempt to move the text back to mainspace, as explained at WP:ATTREQ. You've preempted the results of this deletion discussion, contrary to WP:DRAFTNO...

policy-compliant article about it, and to preserve page history per WP:ATTREQ. And also procedural keep as the discussion here has been mostly about the...

originally. That addresses the bathwater without throwing out the baby and WP:ATTREQ. From there, a splitting discussion is possible. – The Grid (talk) 18:29...

nominated for deletion, which was both a violation of our copyright, see WP:ATTREQ, and a blatant circumvention of the deletion discussion, cf. WP:EDITATAFD...

Delete: Concur with arguments made above. This article also fails to meet WP:ATTREQ for the forking. I didn’t even know what Batverse was supposed to mean,...

Company into Lantern Entertainment would separate EDITING HISTORY (against WP:ATTREQ) as TWC is the longer article, @Bakazaka:. Thus anyone suggesting or doing...

page should not exist because of authorship attribution requirements (WP:ATTREQ). The real content is present in the draft referenced above, and a mess...

articles into your user sandbox, but if you do you probably should follow WP:ATTREQ and at least provide the name of the source article as an edit summary when...

Wikipedia has to be attributed to its author(s), for legal reasons (See WP:ATTREQ). Also, the article should not be moved to the main space if consensus was...

since the nomination were copied from the draft with no attribution per WP:ATTREQ. You will see a history merge request in the history that basically got...

Option 3: History merge it with Wikipedia:archive.today guidance per WP:ATTREQ, or Option 4: Do nothing; leave it as it is. PK2 (talk; contributions) 04:30...

created. As for using templates like {{Copied}}, I think it comes down to WP:ATTREQ. The licensing for all WMF projects seems to be the same in that the content...

Wikipedia has to be attributed to its author(s), for legal reasons (See WP:ATTREQ). Also, the article should not be moved to the main space if consensus was...

there's no risk of losing history relevant to attribution requirements (WP:ATTREQ). – Scyrme (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2026 (UTC) Delete per nomination and all...

since the nomination were copied from the draft with no attribution per WP:ATTREQ. You will see a history merge request in the history that basically got...

nominated for deletion into the new location, so technically speaking, WP:ATTREQ says we need to provide a link stating that the content was copied from...

merged, then it should be kept to provide verifiable attribution per WP:ATTREQ. While the content does not seem to be present in the latest revision, it...

also a copy/paste move according to this comparison, which violates our WP:ATTREQ copyright requirements. -2pou (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC) The above...

contribution history? TLAtlak 03:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC) If I am reading WP:ATTREQ correctly, you can link to the page at HandWiki, if that site is complying...

to this page.‎ The result was delete. Copied without attribution. See WP:ATTREQ. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC) Late 2000s (edit | talk |...

that deletion is not an option because of attribution requirements per WP:ATTREQ, i.e. the original authorship history for Gorr the God Butcher resides in...

you ever attempt to move the text back to mainspace, as explained at WP:ATTREQ. You've preempted the results of this deletion discussion, contrary to WP:DRAFTNO...

redistributed by anyone (if appropriate attribution is provided, see WP:ATTREQ). It looks like Veyhola decided to make some changes to the draft and publish...

this content from Lingayatism#Vedas and shastras without attribution, WP:ATTREQ Shiva article mentions history, mythology etc... can we copy Shiva article...