{{Unanswered}} Could someone please fix this template so that the category it places articles in, Category:Duplicate articles is a hidden category like all the other maintenance categories? -- œ^™ 10:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this template needs to have a parameter for users to enter the title of the other duplicate article. -- œ^™ 18:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you know, it's been made a hidden category. I added a couple parameters to handle links to duplicated sections/articles and updated the doc page, let me know if it needs more than two links. — Bility (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Thank you! ;) -- œ^™ 03:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that that template should even exist, much less get used. Except for special cases where more specific templates are available (e.g. POV fork) it is implying policy / guideline "rules" that do not exist. There is no policy or guideline that per se prohibits duplication of an item in two different articles and so this template is wrongly implying that such exists. In fact, such is common, accepted, and often essential for coverage of the topic of a particular article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate this template at WP:TFD. But I think this template has a function. If you read the text of the template carefully, it doesn't say that this article or section repeats text which is already in another article or section. It says that the text deals with matters that fall under the scope of other articles or sections. Meaning that at the present location is not the place of that specific text. For example, in an article about politics, we should not discuss one specific politician in too much detail. That should be done on that politician's own page. In that case this template would be appropriate. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just some extra clarity would do the trick. I don't think that the current wording conveys what you just said at all. I think that you are in essence saying that the tagged article covers something too thoroughly when there is already another article which covers it thoroughly and which is clearly the logical place for that level of detail (?) North8000 (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Covers or should cover, yes. So, would you suggest a different wording? Go ahead! Debresser (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try. It will take a little thinking to try to to it well. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template might be okay for an entire article, but not for a mere section. I am not seeing any circumstance in which another template would not be more appropriate for a section, such as: {{move portions}}/{{move portions from}}, {{Overly detailed}}, {{Summarize section}}, or especially {{summarize|to|ArticleName}}. Incidentally, a specific use of this "duplication" template is under discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the opposite. It should be more specific about what material the tagger feels is covered inappropriately and tagging the entire erticle is the opposite of that. Doubly so under the intended use which Debresser described.....posting it in a broader article for going into to much depth on a topic that covered by a more specific article. Either way, the discussion here is about the template in general, not any specific instance of use. (although, in my case, the specific use is what made notice the general issue) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no other template for a POV fork, so this template seems appropriate for labeling an entire article as having duplicate scope. For instance, if Wikipedia already has a neutral article titled elephant but someone starts a new article titled Largest pachyderm (e.g. with lots of info about how great tasting elephant meat is and how beautiful the tusks are for jewelry and other commercial uses), then this duplicate template is fine. Where the duplication template is problematic is if there's just one section that has similar scope to a section of another article; why isn't one of the other templates that I mentioned okay for that instance?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with the template is it's current wording which incorrectly implies that policy / guidelines say that (mere) duplication of material from another article is per se in violation of policy/guidelines. On another topic, are you saying that this is the main template for when the whole article is a fork? I thought there was a template specifically for that. BTW, a fork would be a matter of subject/title, not content. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any other template for forks, and this template specifically links to the forking policy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then IMHO I think it should clearly say that. E.G. "This article appears to be an impermissible fork of (name of the other article). North8000 (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should say that. It should say "This article" and not "This section".Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant This template takes a first parameter, so if you use {{Duplication|section}} you'll get "section". The default is "article".

@North8000 Not all duplication is also a fork, so I don't think that change is a good idea. In any case, the template already links "duplicates" to that page, and I think that is enough. We usually try to avoid technical in-Wikipeda terms in explanations, which are, after all, read by all. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming clear that the problem is that we have a template that is intended for two COMPLETELY different valid situations, with wording that is not right for either of them. I think that the solution would be two templates, each worded for for it's intended situation. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please not. :) We already have so many templates. In any case, these two cases have something in common. Doesn't make a real difference if this article (section) duplicates what should be somewhere else, or the somewhere else should be here. In either case there is duplicate content. And actually, I think the wording of this template is quite clear, and don't see the issue here so much. Debresser (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant; the two legit cases are:

• The subject/title is an impermissible fork
• The level of detail in a particular area is greater than recommended because there is a more appropriate article elsewhere for that level of detail.

Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, you refer to "duplicate content". But that's not what the template says. It says "scope" not "content". The content could be entirely different. So, you could have one section in one article, and another section in another article, with the only commonality being a synonymous section title. Is that nuts or what?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. SO this template is for article that have content that falls in the scope of another article. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there's generally nothing wrong with two sections of two different articles mentioning some of the same material. Can we at least instruct people to place this template in the relevant section instead of at the top of the article if the objection is only about one section? Also, can you give an example of when this template would be appropriate to put in a section of an article whereas none of the tags in the "See Also" would work fine?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template doesn't address a situation where two articles mention some of the same material. It addresses the situation that an article addresses material it should, because that material is better addressed in another article.

The documentation clearly says that the template takes a section parameter. Debresser (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know it takes a section parameter, and I am questioning whether it should. Anyway, as I said, can we at least instruct people to place this template in the relevant section instead of at the top of the article if the objection is only about one section? I still don't see why one of the templates in the See Also section won't work instead of having a section parameter for this template.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added instruction about the placement in case a section is tagged to the documentation.

I had a close look at the links in the See also section of the documentation, and I found none that has the same content as this template. They are useful in the cases they are meant for, and this template is useful in the case it is meant for. Debresser (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for taking the time to look it over and make some changes. I'm still kind of skeptical about using the template for sections, but such is Wikipedia. Very happy holidays to you and North8000.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the difference. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to answer that because I see very little in common between them. Not even in duplication of material, because the problem with an impermissible fork is in the subject/title, not the material. The material (merely) follows the subject/title. In the second case we are talking about material that, in the particular case, is covered in too much depth/detail. North8000 (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have a separate template for that second case, {{Prune}}, but it was deleted, unwisely imho.

I still don't see the difference. These two things are the same, just that in the first case the whole article is redundant, while in the second case only part of it. Debresser (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

any idea why? thx. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$N=Duplication |date=__DATE__ |$B=
<!--{{Duplication}} begin-->{{Ambox
|name=Duplication
|subst=<includeonly>{{subst:substcheck}}</includeonly>
|type=style
|sect= {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{{1|{{#if:{{yesno|{{{section|}}}}}|section|article}}}}}}}
|small= {{#if:{{yesno|{{{section|}}}|left|{{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|section|left|{{{small|}}}}}}}
|issue= '''[[WP:CFORK|duplicates]], in whole or part, the scope of other article(s) or section(s)'''{{#if:{{{dupe|}}}|, specifically, [[:{{{dupe}}}]]{{#if:{{{dupe2|}}}| and [[:{{{dupe2}}}]]}}}}.
|fix= Please [[{{{discuss|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}}|discuss]] this issue on the talk page and conform with [[Wikipedia:Summary style|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]] by replacing the section with a link and a [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary]] of the repeated material, or by spinning off the repeated text into an article in its own right.
|date={{{date|}}}
|all= {{#if:{{{dupe|}}}|Duplicate articles|Articles in need of internal merging}}
}}<!--{{Duplication}} end-->
}}

would function the way you want -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You forgot a pair of closing brackets in the "small" line. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not working. JMP EAX (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the error

|small= {{#if:{{yesno|{{{section|}}}|left|{{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|section|left|{{{small|}}}}}}}}}

should be

|small= {{#if:{{yesno|{{{section|}}}}}|left|{{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|section|left|{{{small|}}}}}}}

-- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that made it small when "section=" is used, but it still says "This article". I suggest breaking up the code on multiple lines because Wikipedia's template code is more illegible than TeX. JMP EAX (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole beginning of {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{{1|{{#if:{{yesno|{{{section|}}}}}|section|article}}}}}}} is not necessary. Just {{#if:{{yesno|{{{section|}}}}}|section|article}} should be enough. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think

|sect= {{{1|{{#if:{{yesno|{{{section|}}}}}|section|article}}}}}

would work better, as the template is expecting the unnamed first parameter to supply "section" as an option. It also allows you to specify "list", "article", etc. (I left the namespace check in place previously, because the template was already coded that way) (If I'm interpreting "sect=" properly) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a "|discuss=" parameter to specify the discussion location, to make this template similar to other templates where you can specify a centralized discussion location.

Old template

{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$N=Duplication |date=__DATE__ |$B=
<!--{{Duplication}} begin-->{{Ambox
|name=Duplication
|subst=<includeonly>{{subst:substcheck}}</includeonly>
|type=style
|sect= {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{{1|article}}}}}
|issue= '''[[WP:CFORK|duplicates]], in whole or part, the scope of other article(s) or section(s)'''{{#if:{{{dupe|}}}|, specifically, [[:{{{dupe}}}]]{{#if:{{{dupe2|}}}| and [[:{{{dupe2}}}]]}}}}.
|fix= Please [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|discuss]] this issue on the talk page and conform with [[Wikipedia:Summary style|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]] by replacing the section with a link and a [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary]] of the repeated material, or by spinning off the repeated text into an article in its own right.
|date={{{date|}}}
|all= {{#if:{{{dupe|}}}|Duplicate articles|Articles in need of internal merging}}
}}<!--{{Duplication}} end-->
}}

With new parameter

{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$N=Duplication |date=__DATE__ |$B=
<!--{{Duplication}} begin-->{{Ambox
|name  = Duplication
|subst = <includeonly>{{subst:substcheck}}</includeonly>
|type  = style
|sect  = {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{{1|article}}}}}
|issue = '''[[WP:CFORK|duplicates]], in whole or part, the scope of other article(s) or section(s)'''{{#if:{{{dupe|}}}|, specifically, [[:{{{dupe}}}]]{{#if:{{{dupe2|}}}| and [[:{{{dupe2}}}]]}}}}.
|fix   = Please [[{{{discuss|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}}}|discuss]] this issue on the talk page and conform with [[Wikipedia:Summary style|Wikipedia's Manual of Style]] by replacing the section with a link and a [[Wikipedia:Summary style|summary]] of the repeated material, or by spinning off the repeated text into an article in its own right.
|date  ={{{date|}}}
|all   = {{#if:{{{dupe|}}}|Duplicate articles|Articles in need of internal merging}}
}}<!--{{Duplication}} end-->
}}

65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extra space before the final period in the text that appears in this template (I would try to fix this myself, but I'm worried that I may make an error that will cause more damage). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the |discuss= parameter to the other Parameters examples on the template page. Deaddebate (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a consequence of the fact that setting section="yes" forces the banner into "small" mode. {{ambox}} doesn't show the "fix" text (which is where the discuss link is sent) in small mode. FWIW, ambox has a separate talk parameter intended for talk page links, but it turns out that also doesn't show up when small="left".

Possible solutions:

1. Don't make section="yes" force small mode. (I think it's pretty normal to have full-width cleanup templates at the top of sections, no?)
2. If the user of the template explicitly specifies small="no", have that override the default size implied by section="yes"
3. Put the talk page link somewhere in ambox's "issue" param? Kind of a hack.

Colin M (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what happened to the reply I'd written earlier. I was thinking the exact same thing myself: It makes no sense that it being a section tag should force it into small mode, aside from the fact that the documentation doesn't state any such thing. I've now fixed the issue: small can be either 'left' or 'no', with merely the default depending on whether it's a section tag. — Smjg (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It uses enormous amount of height.

See Russian conquest of Siberia#Indigenous population loss - it is very bad, i think.·Carn·!? 13:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Compare the height with the same text with bigger font. A rhetorical question: Which template is actually smaller?
• And "nocat=1" - a parameter that should be standard for all templates - is not working for Category:Articles using small message boxes.

·Carn·!? 13:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When using the section parameter, the text changes to say that "This section duplicates the scope of other sections" even when the template points to an article and not a section. --93.44.108.28 (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this. I checked the instances of this template using this parameter (59), and most were indeed using the "sections" parameter for sections duplicating other articles, in about half of those cases for sections of those other articles. Only a minority were using it for sections duplicating other sections of the same article, which I fixed on the respective articles.

I added an "othersections" parameter for specifying that you want it to say "other sections" instead of "other articles". · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M @Smjg @Carn I made some fixes to various problematic behaviours with these two parameters, which weren't fully described here. You can see an annotated outline of them on Template:Duplication/testcases. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

so that it'd be possible to call it simply as "{{duplicates|Article}}" instead of the longer {{duplicates|dupe=Article}}. fgnievinski (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]