This template ( template:Citation style) was considered for deletion on Not deleted/October 2005. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
This template was considered for deletion on 2007 March 7. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Reference works NA‑class ( inactive) | |||||||
|
Editor Retention | ||||
|
The Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/October 2005#Template:Citation style debate allowed the template to continue only because it was a tie. Those opposed thought it was an unnecessary template because it clutters the articles since the references were present but not in a "better style" (although there are no rules on references). Those favoring retaining it said it should only be on talk pages. If applied to talk pages it makes a reference back to a talk page about the talk page! Americasroof 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is Clutter. Such issues should be on the talk page not in article space. -- PBS ( talk) 19:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
not "would be clearer' but "might" be clearer. Otherwise it should say "an editor has proposed that the references...would be clearer. I prefer the first change for brevity. DGG 06:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Not all of the participants in the TFD discussion who favored keeping this template suggested restricting it to talk pages. There are plenty of cleanup tags that are article pages themselves, and that's on purpose, to encourage people to deal with the problems and remove the tag when it's done. Otherwise, it will sit on the talk page and be ignored, and when the problem is corrected, no one will remove it. It's been my practice for a long time to put this tag in the reference section of the article itself, where it's not distracting people as they are just starting to read the article. It seems appropriate in an "excuse our dust, and by the way, these references might not be numbered correctly, so be careful" sort of way. If other people want to put them on talk pages, I won't stop them, but I don't like the red "you put this template in the wrong place" line to show up when I feel I am using the template appropriately. -- Beland 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I updated the usage on the template space based on the much discussed Template:Unreferenced. I notice this template does not have a date parameter, Can someone add a date parameter? Jeepday ( talk) 13:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This template needs a link to the Wikipedia citation standard ... somewhere ... Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
First step is to change it to might then, as there is not really a single standard--so nobody can really correctly express an imperative. DGG ( talk) 00:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this have a yellow sidebar, as it has to do with style and not content? Rocket000 10:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
these are really different questions. there is no policy for a particular style of citations, as long as they're clear. there is policy against mixing them in an article. DGG ( talk) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I could not get the "second unnamed parameter" (additional message text) to work here. Broken, or discontinued? ~ Ningauble ( talk) 01:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This template does not provide a benefit to readers and should appear on a talk page, rather than at the head of an article. Having standard citations would be nice, but there's no reason to have a rather large banner adorn a page informing viewers that the citations are not standardised. I'd like to invite the opinions of other users on this. -- LT910001 ( talk) 01:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I recently came into contact with this template here: Supraorbital ridge. I think we accept that many pages are not perfect, but that all the imperfections (major and minor) do not need to be explicitly documented on every single page. I would like to request some comments on:
The template I refer to is this:
This article has an unclear
citation style. |
I'd like to hear what other users think. I think this template is unnecessary and somewhat distracting, and I think it is an example of overuse of templates. That said, I'm sure there are some good situations where it's used. I'd like the opinion of other users. Kindly, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that has an unclear citation style
should be wiki-linked as has an unclear
citation style
. That section of the
Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline explains what is and is not an issue and gives a list of standard practices to help clean up citations. As of now when the template is used within
Template:multiple issues it offers no links and the text is ambiguous. Let me know if there are any objections or a better link target. Regards,
Rjjiii (
talk) 07:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
This template ( template:Citation style) was considered for deletion on Not deleted/October 2005. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
This template was considered for deletion on 2007 March 7. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Reference works NA‑class ( inactive) | |||||||
|
Editor Retention | ||||
|
The Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/October 2005#Template:Citation style debate allowed the template to continue only because it was a tie. Those opposed thought it was an unnecessary template because it clutters the articles since the references were present but not in a "better style" (although there are no rules on references). Those favoring retaining it said it should only be on talk pages. If applied to talk pages it makes a reference back to a talk page about the talk page! Americasroof 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is Clutter. Such issues should be on the talk page not in article space. -- PBS ( talk) 19:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
not "would be clearer' but "might" be clearer. Otherwise it should say "an editor has proposed that the references...would be clearer. I prefer the first change for brevity. DGG 06:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Not all of the participants in the TFD discussion who favored keeping this template suggested restricting it to talk pages. There are plenty of cleanup tags that are article pages themselves, and that's on purpose, to encourage people to deal with the problems and remove the tag when it's done. Otherwise, it will sit on the talk page and be ignored, and when the problem is corrected, no one will remove it. It's been my practice for a long time to put this tag in the reference section of the article itself, where it's not distracting people as they are just starting to read the article. It seems appropriate in an "excuse our dust, and by the way, these references might not be numbered correctly, so be careful" sort of way. If other people want to put them on talk pages, I won't stop them, but I don't like the red "you put this template in the wrong place" line to show up when I feel I am using the template appropriately. -- Beland 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I updated the usage on the template space based on the much discussed Template:Unreferenced. I notice this template does not have a date parameter, Can someone add a date parameter? Jeepday ( talk) 13:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This template needs a link to the Wikipedia citation standard ... somewhere ... Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
First step is to change it to might then, as there is not really a single standard--so nobody can really correctly express an imperative. DGG ( talk) 00:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this have a yellow sidebar, as it has to do with style and not content? Rocket000 10:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
these are really different questions. there is no policy for a particular style of citations, as long as they're clear. there is policy against mixing them in an article. DGG ( talk) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I could not get the "second unnamed parameter" (additional message text) to work here. Broken, or discontinued? ~ Ningauble ( talk) 01:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This template does not provide a benefit to readers and should appear on a talk page, rather than at the head of an article. Having standard citations would be nice, but there's no reason to have a rather large banner adorn a page informing viewers that the citations are not standardised. I'd like to invite the opinions of other users on this. -- LT910001 ( talk) 01:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I recently came into contact with this template here: Supraorbital ridge. I think we accept that many pages are not perfect, but that all the imperfections (major and minor) do not need to be explicitly documented on every single page. I would like to request some comments on:
The template I refer to is this:
This article has an unclear
citation style. |
I'd like to hear what other users think. I think this template is unnecessary and somewhat distracting, and I think it is an example of overuse of templates. That said, I'm sure there are some good situations where it's used. I'd like the opinion of other users. Kindly, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that has an unclear citation style
should be wiki-linked as has an unclear
citation style
. That section of the
Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline explains what is and is not an issue and gives a list of standard practices to help clean up citations. As of now when the template is used within
Template:multiple issues it offers no links and the text is ambiguous. Let me know if there are any objections or a better link target. Regards,
Rjjiii (
talk) 07:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)