Template talk:Cite wdl

RFC: Should template:cite wdl be deprecated

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RFC has ran for over 7 years. In those 7 years, the template was G6ed, so this is mute. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 18:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Like Template:Cite doi and Template:cite isbn, this template operates by searching the WDL string and checking for the full citation details at an internal subpage (there's no overall category for these WDL subtemplates. Should the use of template:cite wdl subpages be deprecated?

Deprecate

• Support See discussion below. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support It's hardly used and poorly implemented, mangling the results. As such, it is even worse than cite pmid.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support We should not have a different special template for every type of reference. We should have a few basic types of reference templates. This makes collaboration between WPs, which is so important, so much easier.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't deprecate

• It is important that editors include citations in their papers. This is not an easy task anyway. It is important to make this task as easy as possible. Hence, we should allow editors to choose the way that is most convenient for them to insert citations. --Erel Segal (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• There is no need to deprecate an entire template over issues with its implementation. No editor uses this template with the goal of creating a subtemplate. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble!
• Badly needs overhauling, though. The bot should be changed to insert completed citations into the articles, replacing this code which is dependent on these many subpages and on the bot remaining operational. If this cannot be addressed, consider me in favor of deprecation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Like the cite ISBN discussion and the earlier the earlier cite doi RFC, we should not be hiding full citation in subpages that are not viewed and not easily seen from the main articles. There's a technical concern with possible vandalism but the bigger issue is that other editors to the articles will have a harder time reviewing these citations without intimate knowledge of how these templates work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• I understand that this is a webpage so I don't support deletion of the template itself. It's possible that keep the template with id paramater (like IMDB or other templates) in case there's a structural change at the WDL library's webpage. I just don't support hard-coded subpages that if there's a change, that will require changes manually to all the subpages which may or may not be easily found. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Serms like the bot could just as easily expand in place for such a rarely used template. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

According to World Digital Library, there's almost 10k items there so it may just be a matter of time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Question: Is the bot that's supposed to be creating these full cited subpages still doing this? This was approved back in 2013 and one of the reasons I hate these things is that it is entirely dependent on bots doing these tasks to be useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I also note that reviewing a random assortment of citations (Template:Cite wdl/3945, Template:Cite wdl/7093) that the accessdate is hard-coded as the date the template is first created. This will of course create problems as it will be incorrect if there's later uses of the same reference (and massive confusion if there changes in the text at the Library of Congress) along with implications that sources haven't been updated. Of course, the solution could be to add more and more parameters to pass through as non-defaults but then you see why I hate wrapper citations in general. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Obviously hardcoding accessdates is totally inappropriate. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • *Shrug* Either way. I don't recall but do any of the other wrapper citation templates at issue do that? I'm always finding Category:Specific-source templates that forget to pass through page numbers and the like so it's nothing particularly new. Each thing has its own wrinkle. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
      • {{cite isbn}} doesn't hardcode anything—it's all strictly by hand. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC closure challenge: Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI?

Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure challenge: Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative template

I'm still working out the kinks but if anyone is interested, I've created Template:Cite World Digital Library which actually works by taking in all the parameters manually without the need for a subpage. It's absolutely hideous for the most part but it does the one thing I care about: keep the URL consist so that as long as the item numbers remain the name and the structure similar, the Library of Congress can change their website without a mess here. Frankly, it's just another wrapper for cite web but I support those with consistency needed for active websites as that can be absolute chaos if not consistent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't encourage this nonsense. There are only a handful of articles that cite that source, and they consistently cite it only once per article. Far better to stick to cite web without the wrapper. If you want to abstract the URL, you can use url={{wdl|123}} LeadSongDog come howl! 22:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)