Template talk:Wplink

Imported

Been a hot minute since I "created" this template, and coming back here I really should have made a note somewhere that I copied it from Warcraft Wiki's own Wplink template. Oops. Not sure where the CCSA 4.0 license should be stuck. — Sojourna (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It can be stuck on the talkpage I think. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Pros and cons?

I want to know what's the diff between using [[wikipedia:]] and this. I still don't understand why this is necessary 😕 Rudxain (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

There is no difference in function. However, I found it to be easier from the standpoint of a casual editor to use a template (with directions included) instead of Wikipedia markup. It also generally gives a cleaner presentation in source editing as oftentimes a second pipe for display is unnecessary (and thus cutting down on the amount of text), whereas using the markup always requires piping for display. Ex: [[wikipedia:Seattle Avionics|Seattle Avionics]] vs {{Wplink|Seattle Avionics}}

It's not all that different from using {{Reflist}} instead of <references /> — Sojourna (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

=== Proposal: Make distinctive? ===

I would like to make it different. I think it would benefit users if wikipedia links on CRW were made distinct. Agreement/Disagreement? Maybe it's been done before on other wikis? I propose that the very recognizable Wikipedia W [1] appear next to the link.

It's read-only for me; could make a fork to show what it would look like if there's support/interest. CrookKilla (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)