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).
Substitute and delete per nom. I can see the usefulness in easily transcluding a repeated bibliographic entry, but it is clutter and not practicable to do this for every article. Maybe if the bibliographic entry was repeated on 20-50+ articles,
Pigsonthewing? (Side note: I keep thinking your name is Pigsontheswing.)
Doug MehusT·C01:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Subst and delete per nom. This can be included perfectly well as just a regular citation or reference like the millions already here. --
Tom (LT) (
talk)
05:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)reply
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).
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).
Keep. A few reasons. One, I believe template code to be of lower quality. While yes, it allows more editors the ability to edit the code, that in itself is not a valid reason. From what I've seen over the years, most people editing template code don't really understand the code and just copy/paste sections from other parts of the code. Module code might have it's own problems such as readability, but that's on us as a community for not creating good coding practice guidelines and requiring modules to pass them before going live. Finally the nom gave no reason other than
WP:IDONTLIKEIT so nothing really to comment on. --
Gonnym (
talk)
07:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)reply
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).
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).
Substitute and delete per nom. I can see the usefulness in easily transcluding a repeated bibliographic entry, but it is clutter and not practicable to do this for every article. Maybe if the bibliographic entry was repeated on 20-50+ articles,
Pigsonthewing? (Side note: I keep thinking your name is Pigsontheswing.)
Doug MehusT·C01:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Subst and delete per nom. This can be included perfectly well as just a regular citation or reference like the millions already here. --
Tom (LT) (
talk)
05:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)reply
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).
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).
Keep. A few reasons. One, I believe template code to be of lower quality. While yes, it allows more editors the ability to edit the code, that in itself is not a valid reason. From what I've seen over the years, most people editing template code don't really understand the code and just copy/paste sections from other parts of the code. Module code might have it's own problems such as readability, but that's on us as a community for not creating good coding practice guidelines and requiring modules to pass them before going live. Finally the nom gave no reason other than
WP:IDONTLIKEIT so nothing really to comment on. --
Gonnym (
talk)
07:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)reply
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).