Template talk:cite wikipedia

Template:cite wikipedia
Really, now, do these count as in "durably archived media"? I don't think so- the text on Wikipedia can be altered at any time, that doesn't work with our CFI. Therefore, citations from Wikipedia are useless therefore so is this template. Teh Rote 00:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What if it contained a permalink to a specific revision? Those are at least as durable as Usenet posts. Anyway, see Category:New words from Wikipedia for an explanation of the project underlying this; there is no intention that these would meet CFI by themselves, but just that they would provide a starting point.  Keep. -- Visviva 06:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no suggestion that a wikipedia cite would "count" for CFI. Only that it is an illustrative quotation for aw word we don't have, and may (or may not) be useful as an example of usage in the entry. (Hence no attempt to link a durably archived revision, as it isn't trying to meet the CFI requirement.) Keep. Robert Ullmann 11:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdraw nomination. I wasn't aware of the project surrounding this and this was an uneducated nomination. Teh Rote 14:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: target page Template:cite wikipedia is still tagged. --13:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm
Is it wise to have a template specifically for citations that wouldn't count for CFI anyway? Should it just be in all cases? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with merging these two templates. is a convenient way to display uniform citations to a site often cited. --Daniel. 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)