Template talk:Plagiarized

MarketPliers likes this.

opinion

i think that if it's not just chudding an article from wikipedia and is instead soysphere-related who cares? other wikis rip our articles all the time and nobody cares, so i think it's fine. if an article is just chudded from wikipedia, it shouldn't be approved to begin with. thoughts?

It's quite hard for approvers to tell when an article comes from another wiki, so chudded articles sometimes slip through the cracks. I quite dislike article chudding already so alerting editors to that fact so it can be rewritten if the topic itself is relevant could be a good thing.
The page issue should be critical too since it's almost certainly a candidate for deletion if it's found to be chudded. 〜 MarketPliers (leak here) 21:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

okay, let's do this then Cobblestone (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

thinking about this template

is it really needed? chudding articles from other wikis is not banned if it's for soysphere stuff, i've done that myself with pages like Vlodette. Cobblestone (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

as the guy who chudded (and altered) some policy stuff from 1d6chan when writing/adding to the manual of style/related pages, and has openly chudded the (now under the SNCA collapsible heading) wikipedia article on Iron, I feel article chudding isn't a bad thing when effort is taken to adapt it to the wiki's standards. plus if chudded content is bad enough to warrant action being taken then we can always just use the existing maintenance templates for those problems, instead of needing a separate template for chudded 'rticles GauntletThrown (clittyleakage zone) 10:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)