Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 23 January 25 >

January 24

[edit]

Template:Harvard citation

[edit]
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 Keep per WP:SNOW. BencherliteTalk 22:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harvard citation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Harvard citation is system used largely in academic publications, initially in printed material but it is now used in electronic documents. Using Harvard citation is not necessary in electronic publications since there is the more convenient system of hyperlinks. WP, being an encyclopaedia rather than an academic publication, means that the more formal academic style of Harvard citation is not needed. Given that the vast majority of our readers probably do not wish to follow up the references for an article having the more "invasive" Harvard citation rather than the smaller reference number is an unnecessary intrusion while reading.

There may be cases where the Harvard citation is needed or wanted. In these case it could be entered as normal text followed by the commonly used {{cite}} template.

There are also a number of related templates that can be deleted if this TfD is successful. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Wikipedia has always refused to mandate one form of referencing over another. If used properly, this does produce hyperlinks. See, for example, CYK algorithm. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah! that article is precisely why we should delete Harvard citation. The article reads completely differently to the vast majority of other WP articles. It is a style of wring that is not needed on WP. A reader does not need to know who says what and when (but if they want to they can go to the refs). I am sure that most reader don't care who said what or when. They want the gist of the article and won't follow up the refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF?? Strong oppose and speedy close. This system of referencing is one of the ones accepted as standard within Wikipedia (see the part about parenthetical references in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Types of citation and also Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing) and is used by thousands of our articles. The template provides an internal hyperlink to the corresponding {{citation}} that would be brittle in the face of future edits and difficult to replicate by hand if this template were to be subst'ed everywhere. And for articles with large numbers of references to different pages of large numbers of sources, it is very convenient to have both the more common ref-style footnotes and a separate alphabetized bibliography, with harvard citations within each footnote; see e.g. clique problem for an example. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Lack of consensus to establish a house citation style is evident at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Citation discussion. I also note the lack of a plan for what do do about the articles already using the template. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not aware of the lengthy discussions. Anyhow, a lack of consensus to date does not mean that a new consensus cannot be achieved. I am really frustrated with how WP is so conservative with its policies and guidelines. A lot of things can be improved for readers but change is extremely difficult to achieve. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*There are nearly identical but a bit easier for the average reader who does not follow up the refs. Those who do want to follow the refs can still do so with the hardly difficult task of a few extra links. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Where? Perhaps that should have come first? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you think you do, but your comments suggest otherwise. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Oh, dear, I suggest a change and everyone immediately jumps in and say "No we should not do that!" -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    An interesting observation. I hope you learn something useful from it before you next nominate something for deletion. Geometry guy 01:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have learnt a lot in my 80,000 edits in WP. I have a good approximation on what the WP community want and my deletion recommendation record attests to that fact. Another thing that I have learnt is not to make it personal and I would suggest that you do the same. Please assume good faith. Anyway, what are you implying? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was commenting on your observation of community psychology, nothing more: you initiated discussion of editors actions, not me. I am not implying anything, nor failing to assume good faith. You have just nominated for deletion a template that is widely used throughout Wikipedia; it is used in particular to support at least two site-wide approved methods of inline citation and this is an issue that has been a subject of endless and often contentious debate over the years. In your approximate understanding of what the WP community want, what did you think would happen when you nominated this template for deletion? A chorus of approval as editors say "Oh my God, we never realized... we've been doing it wrong all these years"? Geometry guy 01:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, yep, yep, ok. Note that Harvard citation is not widely used as the figures bellow attest. Also, I didn't expect this immediate reaction in opposition. I am quite stunned at the level of opposition. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you have learned something. As for the figures, see below. Geometry guy 01:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Parenthetical referencing is a well-used system on Wikipedia, in academia and elsewhere. Please note that this template is one of six templates used for this system:
To comment on "breakage": no TfD will ever close with a template being simply deleted, leaving articles in a broken state. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course I am not suggesting that it is deleted before the linked articles are revised to another format. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those numbers. I was curious about their usage. And now that you have pointed out the low usage it is all the more reason to go with the common convention on referencing! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are the number of articles which use the templates, not the number of transclusions of the templates, which is vastly larger. The figures here are in the same ball park as the total number of GAs and FAs, which are the articles one might expect to be reasonably well referenced as a matter of course. In no sense is this low usage!! Geometry guy 01:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are templates they will almost always be used as a transclusion making those figures good indication of usage in articles. The figures do look quite low considering we have almost 4,000,000 articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Another comment. "..speedy close". What? With such a lively discussion? In the words of the wonderful Christopher Hitchens (rest in peace...) "I have only just got my trousers off". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A very useful template when discussing actual academic publications in History sections, instead of merely using them to satisfy WP:V. The above mentioned clique problem is an excellent example. The claim that "using Harvard citation is not necessary in electronic publications since there is the more convenient system of hyperlinks" is unsubstantiated and so is "the vast majority of our readers probably do not wish to follow up the references." —Ruud 01:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and WTF. Even if you don't like them within article text they are quite handy for footnotes linking to actual references. Anyway, it's been clearly expressed that usage of the template is understood as a matter of editorial freedom. Nageh (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I created this template back in 2005, and was surprised how quickly its use spread, because there is a recognized need for it. Ultimately, I am working on a hard-coded parser function that would make this obsolete (see WikiCitation). But until then, I think we need this template. COGDEN 03:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; that looks interesting. Alarbus (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose don't like them at all myself, but there's no reason to delete. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF–Oppose. Not happening, obviously. Alarbus (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this discussion has nothing to do with the relative merits of Harvard-style vs footnote citations; both are accepted per WP:CITE, and deleting this template would do nothing to change that. If you feel there is a need to change that, initiate an RfC, post to WT:CITE or one of the Village Pumps, or otherwise start that conversation. This conversation can't do that. No reason for deletion has been put forward. However, I will go further and say that in some cases knowing who said what is exactly what readers want, and that your suggested workaround for cases where Harvard citation is warranted is much less user-friendly than simply using this and related templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I suppose I could have done an RfC and we would all discuss it until the cows come home - and probably end at at the same point. As to a reason for deletion, I put forward what I think is a good method to incrementally make WP more reader friendly. And what is you reason to keep the template? The workaround that I am suggesting may be as easy as typing the same text but without the template parentheses. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reasons for keeping: easier to use than typing the same text without the template (which, depending on the approach, would either result in unlinked parentheticals or necessitate working out the citeref by hand), used for a purpose accepted by current practices/guidelines, fairly widely used, doesn't AFAICT fall under any of the normal reasons for template deletion...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another comment. I am not opposed to the Harvard style citation in a ==Notes== section. I just don't want to see them in the body of the article. A small hyperlinked superscript is a better option tor referencing. There is less "clutter". -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This part I agree with; footnotes and explanatory notes are where {{harv}} is occasionally appropriate. For the article body, {{sfn}} is more useful, along with some {{harvnb}} bunched in ref tags. But you don't go tossing one of the tools out of the drawer. Alarbus (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alan, we understand you don't like it, but Harvard-style for cites in the article body is a recognized, allowed style, provided it is consistent within the article. If you want to change that you need to raise the issue in a more appropriate venue. I will oppose any such change; I think Harvard-style is useful in certain types of articles. --Trovatore (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This not so much about what I like. It is about giving the reader a satisfying "reading experience". To further this end pages should be edited to cater for the majority, who I am sure do not need or want Harvard cites in the body of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per WP:COMMON: we generally follow the sources' citation styles for the articles (the general consensus on this question can be evidenced in WP:IC). That is, if source uses Harward style, we follow it. It is the clear implication of the principle of least astonishment which one should generally follow. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So far I tally eleven "oppose" (to the deletion) and two "keep"; there is so far no support for Alan's proposed deletion. As to his (or anyone else's) objections to Harv, I have been thinking for a while that there should be a central, structured discussion of all the points that are raised against Harv. But this is not the place for it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2012 (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:Indian Idol Finalists

[edit]
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian Idol Finalists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and generally redundant to template:Indian Idol. Frietjes (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2012 (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:Indian Election box begin

[edit]
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian Election box begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Indian Election box candidate with party link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Indian Election box turnout (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Indian Election box end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to other election box templates (e.g., template:election box). Frietjes (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2012 (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:Indian Coast Guard

[edit]
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian Coast Guard (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused and redundant to infobox in the corresponding article. Frietjes (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2012 (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:Economist topic

[edit]
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Economist topic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The same arguments as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_19#Template:CNNtopic. As noted it is against WP:ELNO #9, and potentially #13 and #19, and a link to a specific article is inline with WP:EL; these templates are not. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 22:02, 24 January 2012 (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:Kiruna FF squad

[edit]
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kiruna FF squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is no longer in use, aside from one article which has been PROD. Additionally the club in question is playing in a non professional league and will most likely not reach a professional league for some time, thus the probability that this template will be useful soon enough is minimal. Reckless182 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2012 (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:Problems of inquiry

[edit]
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. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Problems of inquiry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles, only used on two of them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Aye, and what exactly are 'problems of inquiry'? Since I'm not even entirely sure what the common thread here is, I can't say having a template for that seems terribly useful, especially since there are indeed only three of them. -— Isarra (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2012 (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:Modernism Framework

[edit]
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Modernism Framework (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three articles which are well interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 24 January 2012 (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:Santa Claus's reindeer

[edit]
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Santa Claus's reindeer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Most of the "links" just go to the main page. Also note that the /doc page is empty. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 24 January 2012 (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:Arm-mol-cal

[edit]
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arm-mol-cal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Just presents the same links over and over again, only one transclusion —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:14, 24 January 2012 (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:New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population

[edit]
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. -FASTILY (TALK) 09:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see the utility of jumping from Byron Brown to Gerald Jennings. These persons don't interact very often, nor is their notability related to each other. The 100,000 population limit is arbitrary -- Albany was added on as the state capital not because it was the capital but because it was silly to include the other three major upstate cities and not Albany. This template only contributes to template bloat and does not facilitate encyclopedia navigation in any meaningful way. Powers T 01:07, 24 January 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_24&oldid=1138696061"