Template talk:Copy to Wikiquote

Merge Template:Howto
It seems to me that when an article or section is a quote farm, there are two tagging options: (a) Quotefarm, which suggests exclusively that the text be reworked, or (b) this template, which suggests mainly that it be transwikied. As I see it, both options should be considered whenever a quote farm appears in article namespace. Therefore, I think we need one template that suggests both, which can be applied to all quote farms. Besides ensuring that both options are always considered, even by novice editors who might not know of our sister projects, it will reduce the problematically large number of cleanup templates. As Dr. Sunglasses said yesterday on the old Template talk:Quotefarm, "Perhaps it [ Template:Quotefarm ] might suggest moving notable quotations to Wikiquote?"

A parallel to this is Move to Wiktionary, to which Dicdef redirects. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but Wiktionary is, so all dicdefs should be either made encyclopedic or moved to Wiktionary. Similarly, Wikipedia is not a quote repository, but Wikiquote is, so all long lists of quotes should be either summarized and made encyclopedic or moved to Wikiquote.

If there are no objections after 72 hours, I will go ahead with the merge. I am also proposing a parallel merge invloving howto at Template talk:Move to Wikibooks. Seahen Neon Merlin  06:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Move to Wikiquote is now Copy to Wikiquote
Per Template_talk:Move_to_Wiktionary, and for reasons I'll explain here, all the "Move to" transwiki templates are being moved to "Copy to". Putting this template in place does not cause an article to be moved, it causes it to be copied. Once copied, the original might be deleted from wikipedia, or it might be rewritten, expanded, etc. Calling this "Move to Wikiquote" makes people who come across the template think that the template will cause the deletion of the article, and often leads people to remove the template inappropriately. Giving it the proper name ends that. There are mentions in various articles and help files and such around wikipedia which mention "Move to Wikiquote" which will need to be changed, I will do that after some time has passed, waiting first to see if there is some major disagreement to this change. --Xyzzyplugh 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose that we merge to two templates, seperating their usage with a parameter by: As for the colour, I think somewhere in the middle would be nice. The "page" template is a bit bland, and the "section" a bit yelling.
 * 1) Changing the first   with  . This will produce "page" if the parameter isn't set, otherwise insert the parameter there. This way,  can be used for sections.
 * 2) Copying the second sentence over from Copy section to Wikiquote. Using the word "content" is general, and it adds a good suggestion.

If editors generally feel that the template would more often be used for sections, we could also make "section" the default and simply change the transclusions (there don't seem to be that many). --Swift 18:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh. First off, in the future, could you write up and list the merge proposal on the talk page before you list the notices on each template? That is the standard practice, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, I'd prefer keeping the templates seperate. Perhaps moving the this one to the title "Copy page to Wikiquote" to avoid confusion.


 * Still, if a merge is vital, I can agree with your proposition. And this template is certainly the priority of the two, so section as the default wouldn't be wise. And the color? Kind of a moot point. They're maintainence templates. Feh. Maybe "#cfc7fb". ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Results from "section=yes" are not completely section-specific
This template supports " " yet the results it produces are not completely section-specific. If you set, you get:
 * This section is a candidate to be copied to Wikiquote using the Transwiki process. If the page can be expanded into an encyclopedic article, rather than a list of quotes, please do so and remove this message.

The second sentence is nonsensical when  is set, and should be omitted, resulting in:
 * This section is a candidate to be copied to Wikiquote using the Transwiki process.

Other improvements in wording are possible &mdash; I don't have a strong opinion about exactly how to improve it but in its current form the support for  is incomplete, producing results that are confusing. Thanks. 67.101.6.80 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For now, I've dropped the second sentence if .  Thanks 67.101.6.80 (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)