The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Inappropriate. References should not be given with a template. Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Requesting a clarification—references should not be given with a template according to which guideline?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:05, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Having a reference as a template allows for quicker insertion of references and easier correction. Also, as Ëzhiki points out, is there a guideline that says references should not be given as a template? RobHar (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. This appears to have no transclusions. Is it used by substitution, and if so can you point to some examples? --RL0919 (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a source is likely to be cited in tens or hundreds of articles (such as the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species), then there seems to be little or nothing to be gained from inserting it via a template. It only creates another page to be maintained and makes content within articles more vulnerable to vandalism (if transcluded: if the template is vandalized, the vandalism appears on multiple articles; if substituted: if the template is vandalized, the vandalism is inserted into multiple articles). As I mentioned, I have no objection to a reference being inserted via a template (see Category:Specific-source templates) if that source is used on many articles; I do object, however, to creating a template for every book or article in a journal, magazine, or newspaper. So, my question is: on how many pages would this particular reference be appropriate? –Black Falcon(talk) 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any guidelines regarding the minimum number of articles a template has to be used in? Because I disagree that a source should need to be used in "tens or hundreds of articles" to be useful as a template. I think 8 to 10 articles should be enough. It creates another page to maintain, but allows the maintenance of many copies of the exact same content in one place. To me, this is very useful. In the instance of the template under discussion, it appears it has been orphaned, but, being somewhat an expert in the subject, I would suggest there are at least 10 pages on which it could be useful, it is after all one of the basic references of the subject. RobHar (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I think it's clear that references should be visible in the article and not hidden in a template in order to help editors to locate the text, make improvements, etc..
So let's suppose this template is subst only.
Since a reference can be added to an article multiple times using standard stuff from references tags I don't expect to find the same exact text more than once in an article.
After this template was already used (by subst) to add references to the related articles, how many times do we expect it be reused? Usually none. Specific references have a very limited scope that there is no reason to have permanent templates for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your first point, I don't at all see why that is clear. Do editors really have trouble locating templates to edit them? For your third point, the template need only be transcluded once in any given article; it's its presence in several articles that makes it useful. If I'm looking through articles and, say, I find an unreferenced tag and I know that EGA I would make a good reference, I can just add ((EGA I)) to the reference section; I don't have to remember what article I've used it in before, go there, press edit, copy, paste it into the new article, nor alternatively look up what year it was published in, what volume, page numbers, and MR number (isbn numbers if they exist), etc.
I'd also like to point out that French wiki has even dedicated a "Reference space" to keep reference templates (their inclusion criterion is that it must appear in at least one article). Here is a link to their discussion establishing the space. I realize that this is a different wiki and English wiki editors like to be independent of other wikis, but I believe this shows that the decision to not use templates isn't as clear as editors in this discussion are trying to make it seem. RobHar (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The basic argument References should not be given with a template is fundamentally flawed. A template may be appropriate wherever text is reused on Wikipedia. I'm not wild about all uses of citation templates, but I would argue in the other direction: generic citation templates tend to give poorer results for the reader than templates adapted to particular cases. In any case the reader doesn't care how the text of a reference is generated, just what it is. And having a template allows tracking of types of references (e.g. to allow a later edition to be introduced). I find no merit in what is being said. (By the way, EGA is Éléments de géométrie algébrique, a foundational reference in its area, and it seems to me perfectly fine to have a template for it: it is in no sense "minor".) Charles Matthews (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reference templates are useful to both editors (less copy-paste) and readers (more consistent and complete citations). — Miym (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionKeep. Is there a way to make the 'I' a parameter so there won't be a need to create 'EGA II', 'EGA III' etc.?
Most definitely (see for example Template:Lang Algebra). I was considering doing this, but wanted to see where this discussion was going first. RobHar (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd say keep provided the parameter is added so unneeded templates aren't created.--RDBury (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is inappropriate for editors to delete useful tools based on fictitious policies. The hundreds of templates in Category:Specific-source_templates are counterexamples to the nominator's bogus policy. —Dominus (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one The hundreds of templates in that category are mostly to sources of broad usefulness., mostly to major standard reference works and databases, not individual books or articles. A few of them are over-specific, for example, [1] and should be nominated for deletion likewise. We are having enough problem dealing with how to handle citations here without this additional complication. The reason for keeping this one is Charles Matthews' statement about how it is a standard work with frequent suitability as a reference. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on that, please? Who is "we"? What problems are "we" having "dealing how to handle citations", and in what way is this template an "additional complication"? —Dominus (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those would be obiter dicta on some meta-debates. I'm vaguely aware of 'citation style' as an overall issue, since I dislike some of the academic styles that get introduced here (I feel no one should invert names on a database since doubling search times is a bad idea), but I'm not going to start arguments I'm not going to win about all that. I was talking to Magnus Manske about the "every book you cite gets logged and ... something happens" feeling that some broader system should be there (probably came out of deWP). I'm sure DGG knows much more about these businesses. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this at all. Was it intended to address my question? —Dominus (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DGG (David Goodman) is a librarian, and has a certain take on things. He was explaining his reasons for voting, in context. I was explaining some background issues, as I see them, which is not the same thing. Giving reasons rather than just saying keep/delete is good; inviting broader debate is not always so good, in that people should be allowed to give reasons without having to justify everything about them. Obiter dicta is a legal term, relating to things judges say in the course of handing down judgements that are not directly relevant. "Meta-debate" is, well, a term one could use as shorthand around here, I think. I was assuming that your question was directed to having more information on What problems are "we" having "dealing how to handle citations", and that the Who is "we"? wasn't intended as provocative. David Goodman being a librarian probably thinks about citation styles in a way different from average Wikipedians (not wiki-style, that is). I added two comments (one about citation styles and search, another relating to "what if every book had a template?" versus "not a problem if this was a systematic data-gathering exercise". I wasn't intending to be incomprehensible. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. You have correctly understood my questions, and you are right, I was not intending to be provocative. I was also not trying to open larger debate; just looking for elaboration. I have posted to DGG's talk page asking for elaboration. Thanks again for explaining your comment. —Dominus (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say a more descriptive name wouldn't hurt, but otherwise I see no compelling reasons to have this template deleted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:47, January 27, 2010 (UTC)
comments. There is a centralized discussion on citation templates going on at User talk:SlimVirgin/templates. The discussion is just as indecisive as the dozens of similar discussions in the last few years. The only things there on which there is any agreement is that when adding a reference to an article, add it in the same style as the others there. Everyone in the academic world has its own preferences. My own personal dislike is for bibliographic sources that give the authors name or the journal title in full capital letters. And I have personal preferences: full first and last names, with middle initial if used. Full article titles. Inclusive pagination. Full journal titles if there is any chance of an interdisciplinary audience. All abbreviations here were intended to save paper and cater to specialists, and should be avoided in Wikipedia, as we have no need for one, and do not intend the other. The point of a reference is first , as a finding aid, and the more i formation here, the easier it will be for a generalist to find. Second, as a surrogate, giving at least some information about the item, to give at least some indication of whether the item is worth finding. The details are endlessly disputed. APA and MLA change every 5 or 10 years. (MLA,the most widely taught style to freshman, now insists that the url link for electronic resources be omitted, on the grounds that people should use search engines instead, a view that would not find favor here.) chicago, our last-resort standard, endorses several styles, and University of Chicago Press lets the editor in charge of each book or journal pick his own. The whole situation is a obstacle even to librarians, who need to know all the possibilities. We're not going to get it settled here.A standard may possibly develop--who knows? ANSI tried one about 25 years ago, and absolutely nobody ever used it. The nearest approach to a universal system at this point is doi / crossref, but the reason they're accepted is that they permit essentially anything. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Userfy until there are more active links. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely pointless navbox linking marginally related articles. Only used on a single article. wjematherbigissue 21:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:This template as it is now is not up to WP standards so I understand the AFD here. However, because the Dope Stars Inc. article is up for deletion itself, I knew it would not be prudent to create articles for their Eps and Albums. Once that AFD is over (which today is its 7th day and there is 6 keeps to 0 deletes), I am going to create at least 6 additional articles for which will be added to that template and will host the template itself on their pages. Once it is complete, It will look like this although with the redlinks going to the articles:
So, this template should only be deleted if the above template is inappropriate, which I do believe it is not. Also, there is a chance for a Discography page, a members page, individual members pages, awards received pages, as well as others. GroundZ3R0002 22:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most if not all of those redlinks would not pass notability guidelines. wjematherbigissue 22:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The soundtrack articles are only marginally related, and the proposed articles on more closely related subject do not exist. Navboxes provide navigation among existing, closely related articles. If/when there is a greater number of articles closely related to this band, then a navbox could be created, but it serves no useful function in the here and now. --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Infobox Moscow Metro station
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete with no prejudice against the recreation as a redirect, if it would help an editor find the more common template Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 20:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incompatible and this one is not used at all. Therefore it should be deprecated and deleted. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 13:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused and redundant to a widely used template. Since it is already unused, I see no reason to "deprecate" per se; we can move directly to deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Actors by series
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete. Categories for actors by series are being replaced by list articles, so there is no use for this message box. (Even the instance that Magioladitis substituted was not a relevant use of the box.) --RL0919 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Actors in Tyler Perry works
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Inappropriate. We should not connect actors because at some point they were directed by the same director. Notale actors play many roles and cooperate with lots of directors, writers, etc. Magioladitis (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is similar to the "actor filmography template" and "movie/show cast template" problems, which have been discussed at length in the past. Actors are not restricted to working with a specific writer or director, and as the nom says they often do work with many different ones. So a practice of creating templates such as this one would result in dozens of navboxes on the pages of prolific actors. Even worse, the navigation links would mostly point to articles about actors with whom they have little in common, other than the happenstance of having worked with a particular person. --RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When? How about moving it to "user space" for development? Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:Latest stable release/Miranda IM
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleteMagioladitis (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The better template Template:Latest stable software release/Miranda IM already exists. Sorry for creating a second one.
Derwaldrandfoerster_eng ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.