Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 14



Template:Pathnav

 * 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

This template is designed to create breadcrumb navigation links at the top of articles. The initial attempt to use it produced a village pump discussion about whether it was possible or desirable to implement such navigation. That discussion was not especially extensive, but the upshot appears to have been that it is not practical to use this type of navigation on Wikipedia. The template has been unused since. Therefore I am nominating it for deletion as unused and probably unusable. RL0919 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unusuable and really inappropriate. I'd swear this thing was made once before and deleted, but don't remember what that one's name was....-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:C web

 * 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 but rename. There may or may not be value in having another set of citation templates, but the current template names have too much potential for confusion with the widely used "cite X" family of templates. It appears that already moved two of the nominated templates during the discussion, the rest will be moved now and the redirects re-pointed at the equivalent "cite X" templates. RL0919 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Barely used template except for a single instance that seems extremely redundant to Cite web and Citation (as well as the below Cit web, with some strange added parameters that seem to have little value in any accepted citation format. Pretty much a copy of Cit web, and seems to be a personal template for a single editor, with no seeming consensus for use or validity as a citation style in the community as a whole. Not seeing how it adds value over the existing templates. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm consolidating additional templates from below into this discussion, since they are almost certain to stand or fall together:
 * --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't mark these citation templates for deletion
This template is part of a family of templates, and I'm commenting here about the entire family. Eubulides (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "seem to have little value in any accepted citation format" No, as explained in the documentation, these templates generate Vancouver style citations, as standardized by the U.S. National Library of Medicine and widely used in medicine and other fields. This style is favored by many Wikipedia editors and is used in high-quality articles such as Tourette syndrome (these citations are currently done entirely by hand). Once the templates are ready, I was planning to use them in such articles.
 * The templates are currently "barely used" because they are currently under development. They are new templates designed to avoid some of the severe performance and usability problems of the cite journal family; they generate far smaller web pages and take far less time to do it. In my experiments with Autism, they reduced the size of the generated HTML by 35% and reduced the page-generation size by a factor of two.
 * I have purposely not used these templates in a lot of pages precisely because they are under development. I am planning to use the templates more in the near future.
 * The difference between c web and cit web is described in the documentation: cit web is for backwards compatibility with cite web (and is slower), where as c web drops some backward-compatiblity features (and is measurably faster).
 * "If there is consensus to accept this Vancouver style, why not get consensus to just add it to the several the existing templates support, without the odd name and " There is no consensus in Wikipedia about which citation style to use, and there is not likely to ever be any such consensus. The Wikipedia guidelines do not mandate any particular style for citations. These templates should not be deleted simply because some editors may not like Vancouver style citations. Editors who do not like Vancouver style should not use the templates.
 * "new fields, which really seem to bloat the citation" The new fields are those specified by the National Library of Medicine. They are optional, and do not bloat the citation if not used. I have found many of them useful in my tests.
 * Because the templates are now marked for deletion, the few pages that are using them on an experimental basis, such as Stereotypy and Metformin, have references sections that are now nearly completely unreadable. These marks for deletion were added without any discussion or comment ahead of time, and seemingly without even reading the documentation for the templates. They are disrupting development of these new templates. Please remove the marks for deletion as soon as you can. Thanks. PS. I   brackets to work around this problem for now, so have struck this bullet. Eubulides (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Neither discussion nor your permission is needed to mark templates for deletion. The documentation on half of them were redundant to the others, and I did read it and saw nothing in there that explained why these templates were necessary versus existing ones (and your longer explanation still does not and appears to be more of a personal idea than something discussed and being done in conjunction with existing citation methods). And yes, there is at least some consensus on citations dictating some basics on acceptable styles, even if it does accept many. Further, these templates are clearly not being used purely for the NLM articles, which is your explained purpose, as my attention was called to them by their randomly appearing in novel articles mixed with the original cite templates. Again, if this particular style has enough consensus for use, why not simply have it added to citation, which can already accommodate other styles. The examples I looked at do not show these templates to be smaller at all, but bigger with more parameters and far more cluttered, particularly the web one. --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you did not get to the Rationale section of the documentation? It explains things in a bit more detail. If this explanation is unclear, could you please explain the part that's not clear, so that I can improve it?
 * The Citation template cannot easily be changed to accommodate other citation styles; it is considerably easier to write a new template than to modify Citation to generate a new style. And even if Citation were somehow modified to accommodate other styles, that would not address the severe performance problems noted above, as the modifications would make Citation even slower.
 * I did not introduce the new templates to the articles you're referring to; I did modify some articles where other editors had already introduced the new templates, in order to avoid citation-format mismatch in those articles. For example, Aurora in Four Voices had one use of cite web and one of cit web, and I simply.
 * As an example of why the new templates are much faster,, which uses cite journal etc., contains 419,576 bytes of HTML and took the server 15.927 seconds to generate, whereas , which is identical except that it uses the new cit journal templates, contains 263,585 bytes of HTML and took the server 8.469 secs. to generate. So, for this particular article, using cite journal causes the article to take nearly twice as long to view and to generate about 60% more HTML than using the new templates. This is a major performance advantage for the new templates.
 * "The examples I looked at do not show these templates to be smaller at all, but bigger" Bigger in what sense? They're much smaller in how much they generate, and in how many resources they require, as shown in the previous bullet. The new templates are bigger in that they have more features than the old templates, but having more features is not normally considered to be a good reason to delete templates.
 * Eubulides (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Does not meet any of the "Reasons to delete a template" rules. Although little used at present, the template are likely to be used once they move out of beta testing. Perhaps the "under-development" status of these templates could be made clearer on the template pages. The exiting citation templates bloat articles, particularly those that have > 100 citations, and their home-grown format doesn't appeal to many editors. We should encourage experimentation on this aspect as citations are important and the current templates unsatisfactory.


 * BTW: I think the terse name "C journal" isn't useful. I'd prefer a name that indicated it was a citation template and that it produced the medically-oriented Vancouver Style. That way, someone else could create one designed for other citations styles. Something like "CiteVanc journal", or taking the Medicine aspect, "MedCite journal". Hmm. I like the "MedCite" prefix. Colin°Talk 09:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrt the "Cit journal" version that is backward compatible with the "Cite journal" one. If backwards compatibility is its only benefit (compared to the "C journal" version), then we need to weigh up this benefit against the hassle of keeping the templates in step and the confusion that two additional versions may cause (they mustn't intermingle within an article). It might be clearer if the clean-break versions were used, particularly if the custom parameters allowed better conformance to the Vancouver format. Combined with an improved template name, this would help avoid confusion and make their purpose clearer. Therefore, I wouldn't oppose the deletion of the "Cit" versions provided the "C" versions were kept, but don't think there's any need to rush to make that decision. Colin°Talk 09:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The new templates were marked with Underconstruction; I just now changed that to to make that clearer. medcite journal is euphonious, true, but I worry that it's four more characters to type, over and over again. Is the name c journal OK if it's pronounced "see journal?"; that was the intent. And cit journal was from op. cit. if that helps. Anyway, I agree about confusion being a problem, and I initially started without backwards compatibility but in my tests it was too much hassle to convert articles without it; with the backward-compatibility features it's trivial (just change "cite" to "cit", typically) and without them the instructions are a bit tricky. It's often OK to mix cit journal and c journal, as they generate similar style output by default (the only problem is if you use fancy author formatting such as last3). The problem with backwards compatibility is that it slows down the page-generation times by about 10% to 15% (this is the time to generate the entire page, not just the references). If we had to have just one macro rather than two, I'd go with the slower and backward-compatible one, but part of the point of all this was to get speed (editing well-cited pages is like pulling teeth these days, often with 30 or even longer waits even after simple edits: aaagh!). Anyway, perhaps we should take this to Template talk:Cit journal as it's not that relevant to deletion. Eubulides (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename. No need to worry about extra characters to type; use copy-paste if needed. I'd suggest something like Vancouver journal, so that we can have other families of citation templates with consistent and descriptive names. I don't see any reason to reserve the easy-to-type names like C journal to this particular family. — Miym (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Absolutely must be renamed to make it clear that they are Vancouver style templates, and avoid what is obviously unnecessary confusion. As it is, people will understandably assume they act as shortcuts that simply redirect to the long standing standard templates (which is what they probably should do after renaming). An extra few characters is of no concern when weighed against having absolute clarity. wjemather bigissue 18:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. OK, there seems to be clear consensus to rename the new templates. There's no consensus yet about what to name them to. I take Colin's point that it'd be good to have the word "cite" in the name, to make it clear that it's a citation. Colin's suggestion of "medcite journal" has the unfortunate connotation of limiting this format to medical articles; the style is not limited to medicine, and is recommended by the Council of Science Editors for science in general (see examples). Conversely, a longer name such as Vancouver cite journal will take up too much valuable screen real estate when editing. One possibility is to have the official names of the templates be the long ones, and have redirects (e.g., a redirect from medcite journal to Vancouver cite journal). I suppose we'd have to measure the performance hit we'd take from the redirect before doing that, though. Eubulides (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not simply Vancouver journal? — Miym (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that naming convention is confusing and doesn't scale. Vancouver news (replacing cite news) sounds like an existing newspaper. Vancouver conference (replacing cite conference) sounds like an already-existing conference. If someone adds a cite radio we won't be able to add Vancouver radio without causing confusion with the already-existing Vancouver Radio. And if we add support for different styles, the ALWD style for example, then templates like ALWD manual (as a replacement for cite manual) will be hopelessly confusing, because people will think that they're talking about an actual manual (such as the ALWD Manual) which they're not. Eubulides (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about, , etc. Just a single extra character. wjemather bigissue 12:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that suggestion: it sounds good to me. Eubulides (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename - I am fully in agreement with Miym. The c journal should be a redirect to cite journal; the difference is too subtle. I don't particularly care how it's renamed; vanc web or v web is fine. But giving a similar name with each respective citation arbitrarily assigned to c or cite is confusing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per aforementioned confusion/ambiguity potential, and Huffman encoding in the length of template redirect names with regard to popularity. --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Vancouver journal, etc. or any variation thereof. Eubulides has already provided several eloquent arguments on why deleting this series is not only unnecessary but also a bad idea. Although I personally dislike this style and would kill it with fire if given the chance, it is by far the most widely used and accepted in the biomedical sciences, and should be available to editors who wish to use it. I am, however, concerned to see this style used in articles pertaining to other areas of knowledge, and would prefer it if its use was restricted to the sciences for which it is meant. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Eubulides should be encouraged to experiment with improving the citation templates. I hope they will eventually be merged with the common citation templates and we get something better in the end. Please don't misuse the XfD process like this Collectonian. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it a misuse of the XfD process at all? Its clear that while these will likely be kept, consensus agrees they are very badly named, and attention has been called to these templates from several sides. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This thread should have been made on WT:CITE or some similar forum. Immediately escalating the topic to XfD broke several pages (because the XfD output obliterated their reference sections); the disadvantages of this disruption far outweighed any advantages of rushing to XfD. By the way, I'm preparing to rename the templates now, to one of the above suggestions vcite news (for the stripped-down variant) and to vancite news (for the slower, more-compatible variant}}, and similarly for cit journal etc. Most of this involves updating the documentation, which I have drafts for and intend to install soon. Eubulides (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominating these templates, which were and still are almost entirely unused, is NOT "escalating" but an appropriate response to seemingly ill-conceived and redundant templates to existing ones that had names likely to confuse editors. Considering this discussion has not even closed yet, why are you already moving the templates? Yes, consensus is likely to rename (with the names you made then redirected properly to the existing real templates), but you could at least be courteous to those who have expressed their views and allow the discussion to conclude and be properly dealt with by a neutral party. And it is certainly not appropriate for you to start removing the TfD notices until the discussion has properly closed. Claiming it closed with consensus until it has actually closed is a false statement. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that the discussion had closed. I was renaming the templates because there is consensus to rename them. If consensus later decides on some other course of action, no real harm is done by renaming now, and I am unaware of any prohibition against renaming these templates on procedural grounds. I will stop renaming for now, since apparently (and surprisingly to me) the renaming is controversial. However, this pause is delaying further development. Eubulides (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It sure is good that Collectonian brought up the template here under Templates for discussion, a forum where the improper naming of templates is frequently brought up. Otherwise, someone just might misaccuse him of misusing the process. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename. We need these for proper formatting of the appropriate articles. Personally, I'd use NLMjournal  etc. rather than Vancouver, as more likely to be meaningful.   DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:C news

 * 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 Consolidated into discussion above at. Leaving the initial nomination statement in place here in case there are any specific details mentioned that are relevant to the combined discussion. RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely unused citation template that seems to be redundant to Cit news, which is already TfDed below. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See  above. Eubulides (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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:Cit news

 * 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 Consolidated into discussion above at. Leaving the initial nomination statement in place here in case there are any specific details mentioned that are relevant to the combined discussion. RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Barely used template that seems extremely redundant to Cite news and Citation, with some strange added parameters that seem to have little value in any accepted citation format. Seeming no discussion or consensus on the new style, and seems to be used only by a single editor. Not seeing how it adds value over the existing templates. Name also far to close to Cite news making it easy for it to be accidentally employed by virtue of a typo. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See  above. Eubulides (talk)
 * 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:Cit journal

 * 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 Consolidated into discussion above at. Leaving the initial nomination statement in place here in case there are any specific details mentioned that are relevant to the combined discussion. RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Barely used template that seems extremely redundant to Cite journal, Cite news, and Citation, with some strange added parameters that seem to have little value in any accepted citation format. Seeming no discussion or consensus on the new style, and seems to be used only by a single editor. Not seeing how it adds value over the existing templates. Name also far to close to Cite journal making it easy for it to be accidentally employed by virtue of a typo. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 07:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See  above. Eubulides (talk)
 * 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:Cit book

 * 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 Consolidated into discussion above at. Leaving the initial nomination statement in place here in case there are any specific details mentioned that are relevant to the combined discussion. RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Barely used templates that seems extremely redundant to Cite book and Citation, with some strange added parameters that seem to have little value in any accepted citation format. Seeming no discussion or consensus on the new style, and seems to be used only by a single editor. Not seeing how it adds value over the existing templates. Name also far to close to Cite book making it easy for it to be accidentally employed by virtue of a typo. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See  above. Eubulides (talk)
 * 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:Cit web

 * 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 Consolidated into discussion above at. Leaving the initial nomination statement in place here in case there are any specific details mentioned that are relevant to the combined discussion. RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Barely used template that seems extremely redundant to Cite web and Citation, with some strange added parameters that seem to have little value in any accepted citation format. Seeming no discussion or consensus on the new style, and seems to be used only by a single editor. Not seeing how it adds value over the existing templates. If there is consensus to accept this Vancouver style, why not get consensus to just add it to the several the existing templates support, without the odd name and new fields, which really seem to bloat the citation. Name also far to close to Cite web making it easy for it to be accidentally employed by virtue of a typo. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See  above. Eubulides (talk)
 * 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.