---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should remove the footnote1, footnote2, footnote3, and footnote4 links as well as the supporting "Italics indicate deprecated or obsolete content." row. I just don't see that this long-since obsolete material would be useful enough to editors to be worth cluttering up the template. Jason Quinn ( talk) 06:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the link to Embedded citations from this template ( at 15:19, 26 October 2017) -- PBS ( talk) 09:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page:
I know that embedded citations are outdated but couldn't the link be kept in the navbox in some "historical" section since it's still a page relevant to the template? ★Trekker ( talk) 15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (whether to keep a link to Wikipedia:Embedded citations in an historical section): |
Greetings,
★Trekker and
PBS! I have read through the conversation here and agree with PBS's recommendation to remove the link to
WP:Embedded citations from the navbox. In my opinion, including it in its original location gives it a significance it does not warrant given its status as an inactive policy. A historical section would be better, but even though I agree that the likelihood of someone using inline citations as a result of seeing it in a historical section is pretty low (I could think of far easier ways to edit perniciously than to correctly use inline citations), to be honest I think a historical section serves only to make the template longer than it needs to be. It's my opinion that we should keep the template as a quick reference for relevant policies, advice, and documentation. That being said, I think a historical section in the template documentation, which would be visible on WP:Embedded citations itself, is a great place to include historical information on what was at one point part of the template. I could even see adding a summary and/or links to discussions as to why they are no longer included. That would certainly provide the curious types with better information than they would get by a simple historical section of the navbox, and keep the navbox as succinct and relevant as possible. What do the two of you think? CThomas3 ( talk) 18:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC) |
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should remove the footnote1, footnote2, footnote3, and footnote4 links as well as the supporting "Italics indicate deprecated or obsolete content." row. I just don't see that this long-since obsolete material would be useful enough to editors to be worth cluttering up the template. Jason Quinn ( talk) 06:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the link to Embedded citations from this template ( at 15:19, 26 October 2017) -- PBS ( talk) 09:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page:
I know that embedded citations are outdated but couldn't the link be kept in the navbox in some "historical" section since it's still a page relevant to the template? ★Trekker ( talk) 15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (whether to keep a link to Wikipedia:Embedded citations in an historical section): |
Greetings,
★Trekker and
PBS! I have read through the conversation here and agree with PBS's recommendation to remove the link to
WP:Embedded citations from the navbox. In my opinion, including it in its original location gives it a significance it does not warrant given its status as an inactive policy. A historical section would be better, but even though I agree that the likelihood of someone using inline citations as a result of seeing it in a historical section is pretty low (I could think of far easier ways to edit perniciously than to correctly use inline citations), to be honest I think a historical section serves only to make the template longer than it needs to be. It's my opinion that we should keep the template as a quick reference for relevant policies, advice, and documentation. That being said, I think a historical section in the template documentation, which would be visible on WP:Embedded citations itself, is a great place to include historical information on what was at one point part of the template. I could even see adding a summary and/or links to discussions as to why they are no longer included. That would certainly provide the curious types with better information than they would get by a simple historical section of the navbox, and keep the navbox as succinct and relevant as possible. What do the two of you think? CThomas3 ( talk) 18:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC) |