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).

The result of the discussion was keep. The specifics are being discussed at the RfC. Alakzi (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "the RfC" is at Template talk:Cite doi § RfC: Should cite doi template be deprecated? – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Cite doi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template should no longer be used, and is currently being removed by Dexbot. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I do not think we are proposing deletion? We are just proposing deprecation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Deletion seems abrupt to me, and there are 628 occurrences in "what links here" for articles. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The transclusion count is currently 2603.

• Keep – Deletion is certainly premature. If for no other reason, this template should be retained for historical reasons (it is linked in a large number of discussions). In addition, this template could have a useful future purpose. For example, if instead of creating transcluded templates, if Citation Bot would replace instances of ((cite doi)) with fully filled out ((cite journal)) templates, this would provide editors with an easy way of adding citations. Boghog (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with User:Boghog Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "should no longer be used" is disputed, and removal by bot is controversial, and should cease until the matter is resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In light of the existence of this tool, using a bot to convert ((Cite doi)) into ((Cite journal)) makes eminent sense. Repurposing cide doi as a "DOI holder" for conversion makes eminent sense.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a template that can be created by an editor and then is automatically filled and substituted with ((cite journal)) or ((cite book)) (some DOIs are assigned to book chapters) by a bot. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Cite doi has 2 big things going for it:
  • automatically filling out most of the fields of a citation
  • making it easy to share citations between articles.

There are some warts which could easily be cured by allowing fields in the article to override corresponding files in the cite doi. However, even without this, I don't want cite doi to go away. cffk (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As noted, there was only a claim that there is consensus to deprecate the template (and I am challenging that consensus determination now that it's affecting a wide number of pages). No one has claimed any consensus to delete the template. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 01:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The template is being being removed and once all translucations are removed, it has no use in its current. The keep arguments seem to be leaning towards possible new uses but I'd suggest they create a new template rather than try to re-work this one. It'll probably sit in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell for years after this discussion anyways. It currently exists as a wrapper for cite journal citations and we should removing the use of these kinds of wrappers to make editing more simpler for content creators. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as historical. As for Jonesey's suggestions, I think a better way would be to create a new template rather than re-purposing a template that's already this heavily in use. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Jonesey if for no other reason. There's nothing wrong with repurposing an old template when we no longer want it to fulfill its original purpose. Maybe it should be deprecated, or maybe it shouldn't be deprecated (I don't have an opinion on that), but at any rate we ought still to leave it in existence per Jonesey's suggestion and for the historical issues that Boghog cites. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for several reasons listed above. There is also no cogent reason given for deletion. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with deprecation. It is useful to have proper citations, and encouraging editors to add them simply via the DOI reduces the friction of using the other citation templates. Sometimes I just don't have the time to create a full citation, but do have the DOI to hand, and I have used cite doi multiple times for this reason. The cite doi entries can then be periodically bot-replaced by actual citations, once the entries have been fetched, and can be checked by editors that presumably have the pages on their watchlists. Ott2 (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2015 (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).