@jrwhite17 I see there is a body parameter for "vivibioity" for cerate a new repository but not one forr from template.
Is your template visibility interal? If so what happens if you generrate with "private":true?

If no other option in a single API call you could create private and immediately folow up with with a
PATCH /repos/{owner}/{repo} setting "visibility":"internal"

Floating this back to the top of the list (hopefully?)

I'm having the same issue. I create a repository from a template using per Create a repository using a template. This takes no visibility setting. After that call I do a PATCH per Update a repository. This has a visibility setting which the documentation says can be only public or private.

When I try to pass internal anyway, it does not error and the text of the response after the call says 'visibility': 'internal'. However the created repository's visibility is not internal. Since the template's visibility is internal, I would at least hope that would carry through during the creation process.

Is this really intentional or is it an oversight? As a large enterprise organization we have lots of good reasons for setting an internal visibility.

ditto

It would be great it this could be resolved. It means anyone enforcing policies to prevent the changing of visibility (usually to stop repos being made public by accident) - is then unable to create an internal repo from a template as they have to do it in two stages, create the repo as private and then change to internal - which is then blocked for most users. Why not allow visibility to be passed in this API rather than private as a boolean field.

I am running into the same issue trying to use OpenTofu to generate repos from a template. Would love if you could pass the visibility in as internal for the API.