Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 17

< June 16	June 18 >

June 17 edit

Alabama and Georgia counties edit

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 relisted on 2014 July 6 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alabama counties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Georgia counties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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:Cite CAstat edit

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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite CAstat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CalStats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Cite CAstat with Template:CalStats.
These two templates are regarding the same source material but function in very different ways. I disagree with having a template structure that requires calls to subtemplates in this manner the way CAstate does it. See Template:Cite CAstat/title 1988 106, for example. The combined template could have a parameter that includes the bill text. This would stop creating a new subpage for each statute of each year. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object if the title can be included in the template structure such that it's automatically given if present. There's no reason to repeat the same bill title across 50 articles. --NE2 07:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if not present, it would look for a subpage? Just trying to think this through fully. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with storing (1) official, and (2) short, titles, since I have never come across one, because I doubt it will often come up. I oppose storing (1) informal, or (2) long, titles in the template. Do not confuse common names and official short titles.

(It would seem they do have short titles.) Is this feasible? Has this ever been done? Int21h (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the state ones actually try things like that for some odd reason. Template:Cite UTSR law leaves the text as a parameter but the actual chapter of the year (well the ones they liked and picked) only work but if people put in the wrong citation, it'll create a subpages of the error and that can be hardcoded in. Template:HPref hardcodes in the Harry Potter books and chapter titles. Template:ME-cite does the same but includes secondary sources (it even uses it's own ref/cite tagging system). Don't ask, I've been trying to get rid of these ideas for years. You used to see them in obscure little e-books but the same walled-garden fun remains. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there is ample reason for repeating the same title across 50 articles: maintaining 100,000+ bill titles in a template is worse. Int21h (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support For the reasons given. ~~But I don't understand the part about including bill text. Wikipedia is not for storing bill text or for a "new subpage for each statute". That is for Wikisource, not Wikipedia.~~ Int21h (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does Template:Cite CAstat not just have a simple "title" parameter like all other citations? This would completely eliminate the need for all these subtemplates (which are each only used on 1-3 pages each) and therefore make it easier for later editors and maintainers. -- Netoholic @ 03:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know that some people like subpages. See Template:Cite WAstat with about 15, Template:RussiaBasicLawRef with about 130 and Template:RussiaAdmMunRef with about 1400 municipal code sections. The Russian ones have the basic "this only works on certain things, if it doesn't work for you, we can create it" which really enforces a walled garden approach. But here the link to the generic archive tells me that there should be default url and the possibility of an alternate (and not in the subpages). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I obviously did not like the subtemplate approach. It is cumbersome and it is exclusionary, and in addition it is unnecessary. A killer combo in my mind. A simple parameter is the preferred method. Int21h (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a frequent user of this across several articles. As long as the new solution is easy to use and there is a straightforward migration path for the old citations, I'm okay with it. --Rs chen 7754 08:36, 21 June 2014 (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). No further edits should be made to this section.