Template talk:CGNDB

WTF?
What's with this?
 * This template is a simplified frontend for Cite cgn and is not currently used in the article namespace. It is retained by editor request and for reverse compatibility. Use Cite cgn instead.

NO, I WON'T "use Cite cgn instead". Either this template is restored or it's not. Myself I think the otehr one needs deletion; the only reason it's on articles at all is because it was robo-substituted for this one on articles where this one had been placed - or rather its fully functional and very efficient predecessor The other one has more fields/lines and isn't as easy to use. i.e. it's a time-waster. I'm using this one on newly-created Yukon articles; if I'm not supposed to use it I'll just go back to straightforward URLs and boycott cite cgn, which I refuse to use, especially because of the underhanded it was was created without being requested, and without sufficient reason of any kind and the buck was passed on this one's deletion/deprecation, all done as a fait accompli in the short span of 11 days by people who don't even use either one.... AS it is this one is generating code-errors; after the article name there's a "C?" appearing....but I'm really stunned to see the little "warning" at the top here. "cite cgn" was created without consultation with people actually with knowledge of the source, and renamed without relevance to the source's own title, and without consulting WP:Canada which was the most obvious place to ask huh? JEEE-zus....Skookum1 (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The rationale has been made by cite cgn's defenders that they don't see the difference; that's a garbage argument, as they don't use them; just the "you must specify id=" is extra work, in the old one you didn't ahve to specify the ID, or anything, you just inserted the unique identifier in the tempalte, and WHAM it's done, unelss there's a need to specify the pagename. Adding "name=" plus a line break then "id=" and whatever else is JUST MORE WORK.  No doubt you want to deprecrate BCGNIS and gnis the same way.  This one should NEVER have been deleted in the first place - the only reason to do so was to justify and force people to use the new extra-work one; now that it's been reinstated it shouldn't have a warning; I'm removing it.Skookum1 (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)