Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 28



Template:Canlii-fc

 * 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 consensus. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Consists of only a link. yutsi (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, correct. However it's a standardized link to a source for Federal Court of Canada opinions.  It makes it easier for people to find the decisions online.  Templates for the Supreme Court of Canada are similar.  Against deletion.--Bepa (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I should also note that this is a neutral citation. Though there doesn't seem to be much use for the template now, I am going through the process of expanding pages on Canadian case law, and plan on using these templates to help standardize them.--Bepa (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The creator (Bepa) will use this to improve Canadian Law citations, an area where he's expert and Wikipedia is lacking. Template:WhoNamedIt "consists of only a link" too, but it's benefitting probably a thousand medical articles. This template has similar potential. - Draeco (talk) 02:26, 29 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:Harvard reference

 * 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 as redundant and not in use in article space. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Editing to clarify: Not currently in use in article space. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Deprecated (cf. Citation), unused in article namespace —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note Template is not tagged, due to being protected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note I just tagged it. CO GDEN  17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the style in citation may change, it is not fixed as Harvard style. If one prefers to use Harvard style and wants to ensure it is in Harvard style, they should be able to do so. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment reference documentation should be updated to indicate the existence of the template. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response Are you talking about this? Why should this deprecated template be kept, considering how it directs users to employ its alternative? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely delete. This template has been deprecated for years because it is completely redundant to Template:Citation. I was the original author of both templates, and I can tell you that the only difference between the two is that Harvard Reference can accept capitalized parameters in addition to lower case parameters. Citation was designed as a replacement for Harvard Reference. In fact, Harvard Reference contains a reference to the core engine of the Citation template and therefore produces exactly the same output. Thanks to Koavf for doing the considerable work to convert all the references over to Citation. CO GDEN  07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And should, as is quite possible, Wikipedian choose to change citation to some other format, why shouldn't people be allowed to use Harvard style? It is a stylistic choice, and if the core engine of this template is broken, it should be repaired to allow true Harvard format. Each of the common reference styles should have their own templates. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on what COGDEN wrote, if someone changes, it's very likely that change will be reflected in . The only exception would be if the change affected a parameter of Citation/core that is unused by . — John Cardinal (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: the "unused in article namespace" comment is only accurate because koavf replaced the template with Citation earlier today. It was actually quite widely used, as can be seen by looking at the user contributions. I don't care about the template itself, but in general I feel it is bad form to unlink a template and then describe it as unused. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response How is it bad form, considering that the template had been deprecated for years? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response How is it bad form, considering that the template had been deprecated for years? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Less redundant templates is a good thing. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I am concerned about its being replaced first, then called unused. However, if it truly is just a reinstance of Citation at this point, I see no reason to keep both, and this one's name is not the most intuitive for use. It appears to have been deprecated awhile ago. However, the template itself really should be properly tagged if its deletion is going to be discussed. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - For Collectonian and CBM: If a template is deprecated, how will it become unused unless editors replace it with whatever template(s) are preferred in its place? Once that happens, the template legitimately becomes unused and deletion is a reasonable outcome. If someone doesn't want the template deleted, shouldn't they oppose the deprecation, rather than a subsequent deletion? What's the correct process? — John Cardinal (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In usual CS language, "deprecated" means "don't use it in the future, but we will not remove the existing uses" . It's quite reasonable to have a template that is deprecated but not deleted, for example because it would be too much work to get rid of it. On the other hand, some of the discussions about deprecating templates might be better off as deletion discussions, if the goal is actually to remove the template from all articles. In any case, removing hundreds of uses of a template immediately before nominating it as "unused" is dodgy, and makes it impossible for people to check on how the template is/was actually being used. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see changing the hundreds of template uses as a problem. This template has been deprecated for years, and nobody has ever raised an issue. Thus, it's pretty safe to say that there was a de facto consensus to making the switch. The mere existence of the template is a source of confusion, as is illustrated by 70.29.210.242's comments above. It's easy to think that Harvard template will give you a different citation style than Citation, and the only way you would really know otherwise is if you looked at the code. The only legitimate reason for keeping it around was because if deleted, it would have wreaked havoc with hundreds of articles. Now that problem is solved, it ought to be deleted. CO GDEN  17:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The easier way to make the switch would be to just make the old template transclude the new one appropriately (e.g. by renaming parameters). That would not require hundreds of article edits, would make it easy to change back if the new template breaks formatting, and would let people still see where the old template was used. That sort of change I would support even without a TFD, and I don't know why it was never done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would have still required changes to hundreds of template instances. The only change would be converting capitalized parameters to lowercase parameters, but it still would have been a lot of work, and just as easy to change the template name in the process, anyway. It is undesirable to add further capitalized templates to Template:Citation because the latter would have taken a slight computational efficiency hit. CO GDEN  19:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One can make the harvardrefs template rename the parameters and pass them on to the citation template. That only requires editing the harvardrefs template itself, not the pages that use it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what the Harvard Reference template does. That's pretty much all it does. CO GDEN  18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then there really was no need to delink it prior to the TFD discussion? I have to admit I didn't look at the source, or I would have pointed that out sooner. "Deprecated" does not mean "all existing instances should be replaced"; that's the sort of thing that needs a TFD discussion. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The current version of citation uses Harvard style referencing, but that does not mean that it will continue to do so. WP:CCC. I fail to see why, if one wished to make sure that an article used Harvard referencing in the reflist, it should not be available (or IEEE referencing for the reflist, etc) Thus the "Harvard" named template should remain, and should be independent of the "citation" template. It is a stylistic choice, and should "citation" change its style, it would no longer be equivalent to "Harvard". 70.29.210.242 (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If Citation changes in that regard, then so with Harvard reference, because it's just a reference to the former. Whatever changes get made in Citation will therefore automatically be made in Harvard reference. That's why they are redundant--and then even the name of this template would be misleading. CO GDEN  18:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said it should be separated. This could be done by copying over the code. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support deletion. And I want to comment that Justin (koavf) should be commended, not criticized, for unlinking all the uses of this deprecated template. This is difficult and tedious work. Wikipedia is littered with these kind of messes and we need more editors who are willing to do the hard work to clean them up. CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no way to guarantee that any citation will stay in a particular style, and having a redundant citation template (that just calls another template and outputs the same format) isn't helpful. It has been deprecated for two years, and Justin finally took up the work of clearing out the final uses so it can be safely deleted. If we had more folks doing that type of work, we'd have a lot fewer deprecated templates hanging around from years past. --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Potentially useful discussion Village_pump_(technical)
 * 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:Troy Duffy

 * 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

Two films don't justify making a navbox. — Mike   Allen   02:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the guy only has two films to his resume and none listed upcoming. This is basically overkill for a template. It's not necessary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No need for a navbox when there's almost nothing to navigate. Stuff like this has been deleted before, c.f. . r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the limited number of works that don't justify navigation via template. It was ten years between two films, and both films, being related, will obviously link to each other and the director as well. Erik (talk) 22:28, 31 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.