This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikisource (inactive) This template is within the scope of WikiProject Wikisource, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WikisourceWikipedia:WikiProject WikisourceTemplate:WikiProject WikisourceWikisource

I suggest that this template be renamed to "Copy to Wikisource". 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 Wikisource" 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 would end that. Note that I'm also suggesting the renaming of some of the other "Move to" templates to "Copy to", see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Rename_all_Move_to_templates_to_Copy_to. --Xyzzyplugh 11:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not entirely true. Admins at Wikisource have the import function which is more like a move than a copy. Of course there are times when only a portion needs to be copied rather than the whole article. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that putting the Move to Wikisource tag on an article causes it to be listed in Category:Move to Wikisource, where eventually, probably months later, someone will come along and transwiki it to wikisource. Wikisource admins would not be part of this process, they would only end up dealing with the material once it got there. Is this not correct? Are you saying that wikisource admins are coming to wikipedia and moving articles completely, resulting in their immediate deletion here? --Xyzzyplugh 20:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is inccorrect. That is how it used to work but now we have import enabled. Where a WS admin can import the page with history to WS. What happens afterward on WP, I am not sure. You should ask the Wiktionary folks as they have had import enabled much longer than we have. It was just turned on very recently at WS. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 13:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Import doesn't mention anything about the import function actually deleting the file from its original location, which is the only concern which would relate to this renaming of the Move templates. Can you give me any links to pages or people on wikisource or elsewhere who are actually using Import? --Xyzzyplugh 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer is at [1]. Cheers, — Vildricianus 08:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, the Import function has no bearing on this issue, as it is just another form of transwikiing. --Xyzzyplugh 04:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons listed in my first paragraph above, I have moved this template to Copy to Wikisource. Also, see Template_talk:Move_to_Wiktionary#Move_vs._copy, where this subject was discussed (although for Move to Wiktionary) and consensus was that this change was appropriate. I plan to similarly rename the Move to Wikibooks and Move to Wikibooks Cookbook templates, and possibly some of the others. There are mentions in various articles and help files and such around wikipedia which mention "Move to Wikisource" 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 04:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the name change. However I am less happy with stronger encouragement to use the Transwiki process on the template itself. Import is a very superior method. Most things in this category have problems or need clarifications before I will find them acceptable at WS. I have left comments on the individual talk pages. I suppose some of them are old enough to list at possible Copyvios, but they are the sorts of things that if the original contributor doesn't clarify the source determining copyright will be near impossible.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 12:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was User:Uncle_G who changed the template to emphasize the transwiki process. While I'm not sure why he did that, it may well be because the Import function is not available to us here on wikipedia (or so I've heard). You might want to ask Uncle G on his talk page, he has a bot which does transwikiing and he is likely the person who will end up doing the next batch of transwikiing whenever he gets around to it. --Xyzzyplugh 13:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently this template notes: "if this source text is not in English, it will have to be copied using the transwiki". As opposed to what? Aren't all copies to Wikisource performed with transwiki? --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]