Template talk:Cv-unsure

message: I went ahead and changed the instructions about the url.  I think the template itself should be modified to prevent it trying to link my already linked sig. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright query 

message: I propose to change the portion of the template that says
(specifically [ this version])
to

in order to allow for the possibility that parameter 2 is empty.  I hope this will get people to be more bold in using this tag.  (If this will make more work for those who screen articles that are thus tagged, a compromise might be to leave the instructions unchanged.)
===== sources =====
*Some code was copied from Help:Template (see  and  for authorship information)
69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edit 

message: *Some code was copied from Help:Template (see  and  for authorship information)
69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources 

message: This template needs to be edited so that it generates a category on all pages on which this template is placed, so that all suspected copyvio pages with this template can be easily viewed. —Lowellian (reply) 20:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs category

message: I propose we add param version to the template and phase out use of url which serves the same purpose.
Besides being wordy, a full url seems to depend more on whatever method WMF is using at a given point so has less forward compatibility.  In any case, having version as a param is briefer and can employ  or Special:Permalink to implement it.
My preference would be to encourage use of the new param by having the doc altered so that it only documents version and drops mention of url entirely, although we'd still have to handle it in the code for backward compatibility, at least until a bot or editors can upgrade all the old occurrences of it.  (Alternatively, one could have the doc include both params but make it clear that it's an either-or, which could be enforced in the code.) Mathglot (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also odd that there isn't a reason or a talk param with the usual meaning and usage, and they should be added, too.  I've written one template before, and I might be able to manage this, but I'd prefer someone else do it, or at least collaborate on it.  Pinging , , and . Mathglot (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a talk parameter, to the template and the documentation. Regarding a reason parameter: the text of this template is rather detailed. I am not sure there is need for a reason parameter. What text would you propose to replace by the reason parameter? Debresser (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to add ''version'' param 

message: Could you explain what you are trying to accomplish here? I see no reason why we should go out of our way to not categorize the fact that articles have been tagged as having suepected copyright infringements for years. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pppery thanks for the question and the ping.  According to the documentation, this is a talkpage maintenance template, and talkpage maintenance templates are not normally dated, the main reason being that when the article is edited, editors rarely look to see whether their edits (intentionally or unintentionally) have resolved talkpage issues and thus would warrant removing templates from the talkpage (they may not even think it is "ok" to remove a talkpage template).  I have less of an issue with date categories going forward (esp. if the date is applied by a bot like with most dated maintenance templates), but it seems of little benefit to create today a category for a month over 15 years ago that may not even apply to the article any longer. Also a spot check I performed last week seemed to indicate that the dates are applied inconsistently: the documentation implies that the date should be the date that the tag was applied, but currently the parameter seems to be used in a haphazard mix of the date the problematic edit was made to the article, the date of the external problematic source, or other dates. This makes the old dating categories even less useful for this template.  Hope this helps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made several convincing points there, but the situation you've created is a bizarre inconsistency; articles whose date was originally in 2004 or 2005 get categorized as undated, whereas more recently-created entries get categorized as dated (all of the old dated categories were created recently as a result of Special:Diff/1105820190 by ). My reason for supporting dated categories is to do things like this and hopefully encourage the regulars of Wikipedia:Copyright problems to continue my work by posting newer years and clear the backlog, as has been happening with several other dated categories there. (And I do agree that the dating should ideally be consistently the date the template was added but an inconsistent dating is better than none at all). * Pppery * it has begun... 18:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Pppery : don't see how any month in 2004 or 2005 could possibly be correct, since this template was only created in February 2006.  So in the next couple of days I will go through the old ones and try fixing their dates to be the date the template was added; once I do so I will remove the code I added and you will be back in business.  I appreciate your continuing effort to clear the old maintenance cats (copyvio and otherwise).  Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Valid point that never occurred to me. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I restored the original code since this discussion had gone stale and it turned out that, contrary to your original edit summary, it was hiding entries (as :Category:Suspected copyright infringements without a source has 1 element and now has ~70). * Pppery * it has begun... 03:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization