Template talk:Wikipedia article

Wouldn't it be better to have a shorter name, like {{wp}}? Similar to the cp and to ones? Or, alternatively, should cp and to be longer names? Also, do redirects work for templates? If so, we could have several functioning names for the same template. Oh, and, go copy Linus' coding that allows the use of different name for the link from {{cp}}, if you like... human^{be in} 13:51, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Ok. Un momento. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 13:52, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

I've changed the size of gif slightly. See explanation here. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we even need this?

Seeing as WP has an article on almost everything, wouldn't it be better turn this on it's head and use it for articles that Wikipedia doesn't have an article about? Otherwise we may as well stick this on 95% of articles. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for finally dropping it. It adds nothing, and as you say, it could be on every damn article we have. I like the idea of "nowp" or some such for things they don't cover, although we really don't even need to do that. So, do we remove and kill this template? ħuman 08:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'll ask ayleburymartin to do all the stuff. he's good like that. I'll just see if he's in. A nowp template would be a good idea. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Now hold on a sec. This template doesn't mean "Wikipedia has an article on this and that". It means "our article is only an outline/stub or is biased or only focuses on one aspect of the topic, or is simply crap, so go see Wikipedia for a more detailed one". -- Nx / talk 09:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But everybody knows that for every article there's a WP article which is longer, detaileder and neutraler than ours; there's no need to have a little box saying it. Also, I'm against these "outline" articles unless they do something WP can't. RW is not an encyclopedia. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There are probably hundreds of articles that fit your description, just take a look at category:Articles needing expansion. Want to delete them all? On the other hand, this template should be removed or at least moved to the external link section on good articles, e.g. Islam. And so should the CP template. -- Nx / talk 09:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it - David Gerard (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Biased

This template says that the WP article may be less "biased" than ours. While we may understand it's a bit of a joke others unfamiliar to our ways might not. Might it be better to use "opinionated" or some such word? (I know that it's possible to change it with individual parameters but I doubt that most people do.)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion above, I think we should just get rid of it. ħuman 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I did - but it didn't seem to reach a conclusion. I've got no problem with having it or not, I just don't like the wording if we do have it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's have the deletion discussion again, then. I think the CP one should go, too (except perhaps on cp: articles). Let's just use the EL section if it seems warranted? ħuman 20:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, after removing all the box versions from the top of articles, we could rewrite this template to create an automatic "The wikipedia article on this topic might be more in depth and less amusing (whatever) than this one" to slap in EL sections? ħuman 20:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

After some thought I have decided that "EL" does not stand for Earthland ( what happened to him?) but to "external links". I suppose so, as I said above I've got no really strong feelings on this - though I do take the the point that WP has an article on everything and if we do keep it then we'd need to decide when its use is appropriate, if ever.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like this template

Of course WP has an article on it. And I see it popping up on articles that don't really need it even if we do decide to keep it. tmtoulouse 01:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing yesterday. We don't need to advise people "Wikipedia has an article on it". Pretty obvious. Ace^X-102 01:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, let's kill it with fire? Perhaps RA could be recruited to delete it all over the wiki? ħuman 02:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this is now the third discussion about getting rid of this thing. ħuman 02:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice it the first time. I don't like it too much, but I do think it has its place. For some articles, we only cover a specific aspect of it - otherwise it would get bogged down in crap before we hit the mission stuff - therefore a WP link works in context. ^narchist 17:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviving an oldish discussion, but I completely agree. EVERYTHING has a wikipedia article. ANYONE will just look at wikipedia for more info. I propose getting rid of them from all pages, but keeping the template, and allowing them to be added after talkpage discussion and agreement on any page, as a couple of articles MAY warrant them. i'll do the manual labour of removing them all if you want. ^EXTERMINATE 20:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Had a bot remove most of them, but it didn't get them all. Feel free to manually finish the work and thanks. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually quite like this, as long as it's used sparingly. It should be for cases where the WP article is particularly recommended reading. It got stupid when editors were putting it (+ cp, up, ed, etc.) on every new article or stub, just for the sake of saying "hey look, Wikipedia has an article on this too". Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed on principle but I think people should specifically nominate articles for this template to be used on. So lets start with a clean slate and go from there. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cases where the WP article name isn't the same as ours, put {{wpa}} in the External links, otherwise no link necessary. 20:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I highly approve the above discussion and I am glad we finally sort of sorted this out. ħuman 06:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The template has now been removed from everything except archives and userpages. I also went and removed a few of the "There's a page at CP" templates, but was VERY conservative about it: I only did it where the page was of a CLEAR mission-related or very general interest, and has CP has no relevance to the topic whatsoever. I'd be in favour of removing the majority of the CP templates, and perhaps think we should start a debate or forum page to discuss it at length. While it may be relevant and useful sometimes, I think its use in the mainspace should only be for pages DIRECTLY linked to Conservapedia. ^EXTERMINATE 10:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's a few cases where it could usefully go in the top-right of a "Response from Fundamentalist Christians" section, but not the top-right of the page. ^EXTERMINATE 10:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've fired the first shot here ^EXTERMINATE 11:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete this template!

I have proposed removing this template Deku-shrub (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Why does this still exist?

It appears that for years the consensus has been to scrap it, why does this still exist? Christopher (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

For eight years now, people have been calling for this bouncy ball monstrosity to be deleted. Now I've done that. It was only on two pages in main space (as well as on two recipes and a fun page). All the remaining links are to talk pages, archives and stuff in user space. We can live with those red links. Spud (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)