Talk:Attribution

From VfD:

vfd'ed by User: Fennec on March 25, 2004 persumably for merge to copyright and/or intellectual property. Dont see the vote or discussion in the old archives. -Vina 22:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• It's certainly not a complete article. "Attribution" is an academic topic as well, and this is more of a dictdef than an article. I can't say it should be deleted, because it could be expanded into a massive article. All I can say is that it should be deleted if it is going to be a dictdef. Sorry for hemming and hawing: send to clean up with prejudicial return if not expanded. Geogre 02:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Geogre, attribution has its place in wikipedia, but the article needs completion. I added the psychological meaning --Pgreenfinch 08:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• keep But change it from VfD to cleanup. This can become a valuable entry. KeyStroke
• Move it to the Wikitionary -- kop 00:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, or redirect. Valid topic. Agree with keystroke.--Dittaeva 16:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

“Actually”

Please note that in this edit summary, I meant MOS:NOTED rather than WP:NOTED. A bit more about why I reverted: the problematic use of the word “actually” is that of correcting the reader, which is not the case here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)