The result of the discussion was delete. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This template is essentially a coatrack for Integral theory (Ken Wilber) and doesn't have much of a chance to be used for anything else. It is not a useful navigational tool anymore now that the WP:Walled garden of articles that were once overwhelming Wikipedia on non-notable subjects related to this particular New Age philosophy has been pruned back. jps ( talk) 14:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted here. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 14:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Religion primary with
Template:Faith primary.
Per the discussion at
Template talk:Religion primary that lead to the creation of {{
Faith primary}} in 2013, but was never followed up on. The idea behind this nomination and that discussion is that religion is a specific case of "a faith or other belief system" (text of that template). The proposal is to redirect Religion primary to Faith primary.
Debresser (
talk) 09:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
template:cite book wrapper used on eight pages. Even if kept, the book link looks like something promotional to me. I'm not sure why the link is there at all. Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. An editor has noted their need for this, and the only explanation for deletion has been unneeded. Strength of arguments is fairly clear. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 22:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
template:cite book wrapper for citing to The Chicago Manual of Style that is only used at Op. cit.. Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
Cite book}}
or whatever after being substituted), but this will take work. It's on my to-do list, and there is no hurry. These templates require no maintenance (other than that impending work, which I'm volunteering for). The only maintenance hassle associated with these templates is periodic TfDs to kill them all for no reason, which always close with a consensus to keep them. Please just give it a rest. People have been trying sporadically and misguidedly to delete single-source cite templates for at least 5 years, and the answer is always the same: If if saves people time creating valid citations to reliable sources we want that because it means more material that is present will be sourced, and more new sourced material will be added. PS: I think what's motivating this is the earlier, proper merging of redundant templates for types of citation data, e.g. DOI templates, etc., into the main templates for media of citation (book, journal, etc.). These are not the same thing. They are source-specific, to obviate the need to keep re-re-re-entering the same author, title, publisher, date, etc. stuff over and over again for the same source. It's exceedingly tedious, and it discourages encyclopedic editing to keep attacking these templates. We have an entire category tree for these templates, across all sorts of topics, and it has been long-term stable. Just leave it alone, please. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)PS: If you really want, I can hasten my re-entry into that topic, and use this template a dozen times tomorrow, thus mooting your "rationale" that it's only been used once. Then what? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Arguments against included redundancy and extra maintenance, whereas there wasn't really any argument for that doesn't also apply to the regular citation templates. Whereas hardcoded reference templates can be useful where a source is used on a large number of pages, this one is only used on three pages, which makes the case for "need" nonexistent. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 14:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This seems like an exceedingly complicated wrapper for Template:Citation that is used in just three pages. While this is an important citation (or four really), the absolutely cryptic nature of how the text looks to other editors is a huge burden and pales to the very minute advantage gained in something that could just as easily be stored in a reflist template. Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
template's parameters. {{
AR4}}
attempts to cite a section and chapter of a larger work. To do that, it misuses |editor=
to hold a link created by {{
harvnb}}
(presumably because {{citation}}
prefixes the editor name-list with 'in ' when both |author=
and |editor=
are set); misuses |chapter=
to hold a section title; misuses |title=
to hold the chapter title; misuses |author=
to hold a mostly comma-separated list of names.{{AR4}}
, {{citation}}
does not know the title of the IPCC report. The 'title' in |editor=
doesn't count because {{citation}}
does not know that {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}
is not an editor's name.{{AR4}}
, the chapter title is rendered in italic font.{{AR4}}
will produce incomplete and corrupted metadata. Incomplete because there is no proper title; corrupted because |author=
is a singular parameter used here to hold multiple names.The result of the discussion was replace with {{ Infobox book}}. This is as opposed to merging the support for custom fields, which was rejected. The custom fields can be proposed at Template talk:Infobox book if contributors feel they're needed. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 00:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Infobox Harry Potter book with
Template:Infobox book.
It seems unnecessary to have a separate specialized template for nine mainspace pages (and three userspace versions of the same content). It's literally just a wrapper for
Template:Infobox book anyways with a few parameters set here as opposed to copied down. The reasons against these kinds of wrappers as changes to template will necessary break these kinds of templates and so little is gained from this for the very minute adjustments that would be required to just have this follow every other book article.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 00:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
|genre=
. What a mess!
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 18:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)The result of the discussion was delete. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This template is essentially a coatrack for Integral theory (Ken Wilber) and doesn't have much of a chance to be used for anything else. It is not a useful navigational tool anymore now that the WP:Walled garden of articles that were once overwhelming Wikipedia on non-notable subjects related to this particular New Age philosophy has been pruned back. jps ( talk) 14:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted here. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 14:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Religion primary with
Template:Faith primary.
Per the discussion at
Template talk:Religion primary that lead to the creation of {{
Faith primary}} in 2013, but was never followed up on. The idea behind this nomination and that discussion is that religion is a specific case of "a faith or other belief system" (text of that template). The proposal is to redirect Religion primary to Faith primary.
Debresser (
talk) 09:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
template:cite book wrapper used on eight pages. Even if kept, the book link looks like something promotional to me. I'm not sure why the link is there at all. Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. An editor has noted their need for this, and the only explanation for deletion has been unneeded. Strength of arguments is fairly clear. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 22:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
template:cite book wrapper for citing to The Chicago Manual of Style that is only used at Op. cit.. Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
Cite book}}
or whatever after being substituted), but this will take work. It's on my to-do list, and there is no hurry. These templates require no maintenance (other than that impending work, which I'm volunteering for). The only maintenance hassle associated with these templates is periodic TfDs to kill them all for no reason, which always close with a consensus to keep them. Please just give it a rest. People have been trying sporadically and misguidedly to delete single-source cite templates for at least 5 years, and the answer is always the same: If if saves people time creating valid citations to reliable sources we want that because it means more material that is present will be sourced, and more new sourced material will be added. PS: I think what's motivating this is the earlier, proper merging of redundant templates for types of citation data, e.g. DOI templates, etc., into the main templates for media of citation (book, journal, etc.). These are not the same thing. They are source-specific, to obviate the need to keep re-re-re-entering the same author, title, publisher, date, etc. stuff over and over again for the same source. It's exceedingly tedious, and it discourages encyclopedic editing to keep attacking these templates. We have an entire category tree for these templates, across all sorts of topics, and it has been long-term stable. Just leave it alone, please. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 08:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)PS: If you really want, I can hasten my re-entry into that topic, and use this template a dozen times tomorrow, thus mooting your "rationale" that it's only been used once. Then what? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 16:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. Arguments against included redundancy and extra maintenance, whereas there wasn't really any argument for that doesn't also apply to the regular citation templates. Whereas hardcoded reference templates can be useful where a source is used on a large number of pages, this one is only used on three pages, which makes the case for "need" nonexistent. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 14:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This seems like an exceedingly complicated wrapper for Template:Citation that is used in just three pages. While this is an important citation (or four really), the absolutely cryptic nature of how the text looks to other editors is a huge burden and pales to the very minute advantage gained in something that could just as easily be stored in a reflist template. Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
template's parameters. {{
AR4}}
attempts to cite a section and chapter of a larger work. To do that, it misuses |editor=
to hold a link created by {{
harvnb}}
(presumably because {{citation}}
prefixes the editor name-list with 'in ' when both |author=
and |editor=
are set); misuses |chapter=
to hold a section title; misuses |title=
to hold the chapter title; misuses |author=
to hold a mostly comma-separated list of names.{{AR4}}
, {{citation}}
does not know the title of the IPCC report. The 'title' in |editor=
doesn't count because {{citation}}
does not know that {{Harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG1|2007}}
is not an editor's name.{{AR4}}
, the chapter title is rendered in italic font.{{AR4}}
will produce incomplete and corrupted metadata. Incomplete because there is no proper title; corrupted because |author=
is a singular parameter used here to hold multiple names.The result of the discussion was replace with {{ Infobox book}}. This is as opposed to merging the support for custom fields, which was rejected. The custom fields can be proposed at Template talk:Infobox book if contributors feel they're needed. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 00:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Propose merging
Template:Infobox Harry Potter book with
Template:Infobox book.
It seems unnecessary to have a separate specialized template for nine mainspace pages (and three userspace versions of the same content). It's literally just a wrapper for
Template:Infobox book anyways with a few parameters set here as opposed to copied down. The reasons against these kinds of wrappers as changes to template will necessary break these kinds of templates and so little is gained from this for the very minute adjustments that would be required to just have this follow every other book article.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 00:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
|genre=
. What a mess!
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 18:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)