Template talk:Wikipedia

Wikitravel
Do we need a similar template if using information from Wikitravel? --Globe-trotter (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2012 (CEST)
 * It would be useful to have a template for attribution which can be used for a variety of sources. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

placement of Template:Wikipedia
We have Template:Wikipedia, which adds:

Common practice has people putting it at the bottom of the article, but I have a couple of questions: Texugo (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it absolutely necessary to put this inside the article?
 * Wouldn't a link to the WP page in an edit comment provide a better, more permanent attribution, findable in the same place where other attribution is?
 * If we do have to keep it at the bottom of the article forever and ever, can we please at least redesign the template to include options for multiple articles, so we don't get this kind of ugliness?
 * No, yes, not applicable.
 * As long as the edit comment references the actual URL of the edit version that material was copied from, that is certainly all the legal attribution needed. (I don't think EN-WP needs any popularity boost from us at this stage of our relative developments). --W. Frankemailtalk 02:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you've brought this up, and would love for us to finally get rid of that unnecessary template in the article. There's absolutely no reason why we would not follow Wikimedia's own rules for re-use. They ask either a full list of authors or a link in the edit summary. They also have a template available for use on the article's talk page (which I still think is overdone when a hyperlink is provided, but I would use it when large parts of an article are as good as copied, which is something we don't want in the first place). They never did ask for any templates in articles themselves. JuliasTravels (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And what to do with pages that already have this template. Would it be sufficient to remove the template and put the link in the edit summary at the same time? Texugo (talk) 11:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I for one don't see why not. I see no difference in requirements between future articles and existing ones that now have the template, so as long as we live up to the described WM practices it should be fine, even when we did more in the past. But it'd be good if others would comment: I remember when I was fairly new here I raised the same argument and did meet resistance to replacing the template. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to see this template go. I've never quite understood how to use it correctly and, if the fix is as simple as you suggest, I'm all for losing it. --Nick talk 16:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The current guidance is that the template should be placed on the article's talk page. I think that this provides a convenient way of giving a link back to the WP article. I would suggest that the template should be kept, and the moved to talk pages, which is also a way of ensuring that attribution remains, when it may not have been put in the edit summary. AlasdairW (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alasdair on this. Pashley (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Its been months now. Should we start moving template from article's page to article's talk page? --Saqib (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say so. Texugo (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Saqib (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Shabash. Pashley (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * User:LtPowers, I was trying to add options for multiple articles and it seemed to work but you reverted it. --Saqib (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not working. Template transclusions with only one article name in the parameters were coming out as "This article contains content imported from the English Wikipedia article on banana, Wikipedia.  View the page revision history for a list of the authors."  Powers (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

VfD
This template was nominated for deletion on 18 November 2013 but was kept. The deletion debate is Votes_for_deletion/December_2013. Please consider that decision before you re-nominate it for deletion again. --Saqib (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Template changes
Thanks to TeleComNasSprVen and Saqib for working on this template. A few things: Texugo (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the insertion of "Category:Articles copied from Wikipedia" for a couple of reasons. Normally I'm a big fan of maintenance categories, but in this case it is only able to categorize the associated talk pages, and since exactly what text was copied is not indicated anyway, it is unclear what maintenance purpose this category would actually serve &mdash; what would one do with it? If we do come up with a purpose for a category besides a mere whatlinkshere curiosity, it'll be easy enough to reinsert one (though a more accurate title would be an unwieldy "Category:Talk pages of articles with text copied from Wikipedia").
 * I appreciate the effort to have it handle multiple parameters, but two is not enough either. I know for sure I've seen this template used up to at least 22 times on a single page. Could we have it handle up to about thirty article titles?
 * It currently gives an error message when used in any namespace besides Talk:, but it needs to include at least the Wikivoyage talk: namespace (ex. Wikivoyage talk:Contact us) and the Template talk: namespace (ex. Template talk:Imbox or talk page of any other template that gets copied from WP). In the case of templates, it might be good to allow it in the main template space too, since it can be noincluded out and can serve to point people there when our documentation is lacking. It also shouldn't put User: or User talk: pages into the script error category (ex. User:Nicholasjf21/London/Old Bailey Trials, User:Dillard421/Sandbox).
 * Something also needs to be done to remove the script error from the instance above on this page and the ones at Template index and Travellers' pub/2013. These pages don't belong in Category:Pages with script errors either.
 * First of all, Yes, there's no need of a CAT here. Secondly, off course we can have up to 30 article titles in a single template. Third, I'm against to keep it for usage on limited namespace. No one knowns when we might need to use it at "MediaWiki talk" or "Category talk" so please remove error string. And lastly Texugo, once the error string be removed from this template. This talk page and others two you mentioned won't show on Category:Pages with script errors anymore. --Saqib (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, maybe a good maybe a good solution would be to invert the error switch and have it place an error/category only when in the main namespace. Texugo (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done but we've removed the error message. --Saqib (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)