Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 10 August 12 >

August 11 edit


Template:Cite web/smart 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 keep but rename to Sandbox4. --v/r - TP 19:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite web/smart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not sure this does anything at all by it's usage info. Simply looks like yet another so called fast template like Template:Cite quick and many more that currently have no consensus for use in articles, yet are still being created one after another. Think its best we talk about all these before we have many more.Moxy (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(FYI: For questions about a subtemplate created this morning, look at the page history, and contact the author's talk-page. --Wikid77 20:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Not sure what your saying - are you suggesting for those that wish to understand its purpose they should contact you or look at the edit history? Why no explanation of usage on the page? Anyways I see now is just another redirect template that is - in theory faster while reducing functionality. Moxy (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep from author: The new Template:Cite_web/smart, created this morning (11 August 2012), is an attempt to totally upgrade {Cite_web} to be both faster and handle all complex {Cite} parameters being supported, now and in the future. The tactic is to check for rare parameters in {Cite_web/smart} and only then invoke {Citation/core}; otherwise, {Cite_web/smart} would perform like fast-cite {Cite_quick} to format the parameters in the same pattern as Citation_style_1, but not really using {Citation/core} when only common parameters are used. For common parameters, {Cite_web/smart} has been tested to run 4x faster than {Cite_web}, while for rare parameters, it has run about the same speed, or formatting 17 cites per second. The planned integration is: #REDIRECT of {Cite_web} to invoke {Cite_web/smart}, for all among the 1.6 million articles which use Template:Citation/core. Note well: Although {Cite_web/smart} looks like a "fork" of {Cite_web}, it is really designed to be the next generation, perhaps ready by mid-August 2012. For people who wanted to test a template, then all assistance is welcomed. It will be used in over 1 million articles (transcluded into 1,128,784 pages, June 2012), so that is why testing has been so much more critical: {Cite_web/smart} is not in the little league of {Cite_quick} to be used in a few hundred slow articles. Instead, {Cite_web/smart} is the big-league replacement for {Cite_web}, which people have been wanting for years. After testing and protecting, then the upgrade would involve a redirect of {Cite_web} to invoke {Cite_web/smart}. Similarly, there would be a {Cite_news/smart} to upgrade {Cite_news}, after learning what needed to be changed in {Cite_web/smart}, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and block Wikid77 for serious disruption. Delete {{cite quick}}, too. These are both yet-further forks of the suite discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 15#Template:Fcite, which closed saying keep but only for "helping to improve existing citation templates". Wikid77's not doing that, they're trying again with new template names. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that reply goes beyond your typical sarcasm. With this template, as a subtemplate of {Cite_web}, the intention is to finally upgrade {Cite_web} via a #REDIRECT, but allow a return to the original {Cite_web} if {Cite_web/smart} needs additional improvements, due to any unforseen resource issues. Remember that {Cite_web} is used in over 1 million pages, and embedded in some infoboxes, so it will take time to assess the total impact, and there might be a need to undo the #REDIRECT for a while. That is why a subtemplate "*/smart" is being used to develop the next-generation design. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I didn't mark it up with <sarcasm></sarcasm>... There's no "#REDIRECT" about it; there is {{Cite web/sandbox}} and you should propose things there, even if it's a direct copy of this thing. Creating this flurry of appealing names is demagoguery and disruption. See below ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, {{Cite web/sandbox2}} and /sandbox3 are already used, so {{Cite web/smart}} was a unique name not in use. -Wikid77 04:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and admonish Wikid77 to stop this. Improving the speed of our existing citation templates would be a useful contribution. Adding to the confusing profusion of different template variations that all do almost the same thing as each other is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you missed the part above about improving the existing templates; re-read at: "totally upgrade {Cite_web} to be both faster and handle all complex {Cite} parameters". As for the variations, don't blame me for the current 23 forks of {Cite_web}, as {Cite_news}, {Cite_press_release}, {Cite_url}, {Cite_book}, etc. Meanwhile, I am not doing the "same thing" but rather, making {Cite_web} run 4x faster for common parameters. -Wikid77 06:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or userspace if the editor agrees to actually use some of this output to try to improve the existing templates instead of sowing confusing by introducing odd variants of them.) These alternative templates of Wikid77's are not helpful. They may be expedient for him and for a few lazy editors, but they suck bunghole for all other editors, who have to manually convert them to real citation templates in order to add any kind of information to a citation at all. And about 90% of citations on Wikipedia are incomplete and can be expanded in this way. If all you have or are willing to enter is a title, author and year, then just do {{cite|title=Title Here|author=Last, First|year=2013}} and move on. Don't use weird variations of our standardized templates, causing problems for everyone else. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 04:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you also missed the part above about improving the existing templates; re-read at the plan to: "totally upgrade {Cite_web} to be both faster and handle all complex {Cite} parameters". That means the existing template {Cite_web} will be changed to run faster. -Wikid77 06:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To nominate a template for TFD hours after its creation is ridiculous. Let the template be worked on and discussed at a more suitable venue, and if no such improvement/discussion takes place, then take it to TFD.
  • As far as the template is concerned, there is a problem (articles hitting the template limit), and Wikid77 is making attempts to resolve that problem. They should be commended for taking the initiative to look for solutions. This particular attempt at a fix seems better than previous fork-based solutions, in that Wikid appears to want to maintain compatibility with regular cite templates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
100% compatible and extended: Yes, the idea is to keep {Cite_web} 100% compatible with the prior parameters, plus also allow for new parameters, now that {Cite_web} will be much faster. Perhaps people forget that aspect: the prior slow performance of {Cite_web} also thwarted other new parameters, due to obvious fears that more options would mean "even slower". Instead, {Cite_web} can be made faster in this new {Cite_web/smart} version, but also allow other major extensions to be added. For example, perhaps a new short parameter "urlw" could be added so "urlw=xx.com" would be shorthand for full URL "http: //www.xx.com". With the current version, a new parameter "urlw=" would mean even slower, but this new version could quickly support such a convenient new option due to speed gained elsewhere. Another plan is to warn the user of common misspelled parameters. So, the focus is "100% compatible and extended". -Wikid77 12:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. As per the many previous discussions, and sanction the editor for not stopping making these despite the clear consensus and for yet again canvassing a deletion they oppose despite warnings on that too.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "moar IDHT", as Br'er intimates, is precisely right. There is a correct path forward here, which is untangling the overcomplexity of the existing citation system. Wikid77 is abundantly aware of this, but chooses to ignore it because it is harder than simply forking off test code, advertising it in friendly venues (such as Jimbo's talk page, which has historically been Wikid77's favourite consensus bypass), and then deploying it with false assertions of community consent. There will always be naive editors willing to AGF of the author when these are taken to TfD, which is why a clear message needs to be sent to Wikid77 to stop wasting the community's time by repeatedly reintroducing them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per stop forking these damned citation templates. The solution is to make improvements at {{citation/core}} and related templates, not re-implement everything every time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Headbomb, I have been making improvements at Template:Citation/core for 2 years, and that is how I understand why the template is so slow, and why it hits the template-include-size limit. The template {Cite_web/smart} is a subtemplate of {Cite_web}, with the implication that it will be integrated into the current operation, but only after discussing technical concerns with other users. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I have tagged this as experimental. and not for use in articles. Wikid77 is technically very competent, but is not doing a good job of communication. The template is not used in article space, so there is no disruption. There are issues with the current template, but this is not the place to debate them— and RFC would be appropriate. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And would this include a moratorium on Wikid77 creating additional forks of this type? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment i have not seen proof of Wikid77's competence but i'm willing to take your word for it until such time i am able to decide myself. however his communication and conversational skills are not just "poor": they are misleading and unduly biased towards his position. typical is the tendency to present debugging of errors/incompatibilities as "improvements." bottom line is, his willingness to improve the citation templates is commendable, but this is learning on the job. be forthright and admit that this is alpha or pre-alpha code that has real bugs, then people would be more likely to help along. or come back when the code is ready for production. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 70.19, I have been "learning" for years about {cite_web}, and if you imagine "real bugs" then [citation needed] for evidence, because it has been over 2 days since the template was created, it now checks 454 parameters, and I have tested hundreds of cases. The template is ready for production, and I have asked people to report any remaining specific issues to fix, not bad-mouth insults of me as being "misleading". That is classic ad hominem, and all your comments will get ignored by others, unless you focus on content, not character attacks. -Wikid77 14:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
your behavior on this subject in past weeks has been questionable. starting with your deployment on article pages of the so-called "fcite" templates, which you tried to present as a done deal. your comments in the CS1 centralized talk page, the Village pump page, the relevant ANI page, the various tfd pages and elsewhere have been self-serving and obfuscating. this discussion is basically a continuation of the previuous "fcite" and "cite quick" discussions, because you insist on unproven claims, disproven code, and promotional attitude. the "fcite" templates broke pages, period. if that was the result of years-long study of "citation/core", then your competence must be questioned. these templates had real bugs, something that should not happen in deployment-quality code, and which you self-servedly breezed through, misleadingly presenting the debugging as "enhancements" or "increased compatibilities".
practically all your posts/threads have elements of self-promotion/marketing with phrasing such as "templates now 100% compatible" or "such-and-such is x times faster" etc. moreover, the marketing doesn't stop there as you try to force a roadmap (yours) by declaring your templates the future standard of the wikipedia citation system.
in the meantime, the latest iteration is the "cite smart" templates. see a promotional pattern here? "fast cite", then "cite quick", now "cite smart", it would be laughable if not for the waste of time. here we have a subtle but important change in the coding philosophy. this is basically an if/then loop that loads a "new" citation template (that duplicates citation/core parameters) and treats "citation/core" as "citation/special cases" by calling it for the less-used parameters. why is this shift in coding important? if you have actually studied the citation system and its requirements for years, then such fundamental design shifts in a matter of few weeks would not have happened. this is yet more circumstantial evidence of making it up as you go along.
based on your behavior and the coding changes i would very carefully examine everything you claim ... if i have the time (it may or may not be better for me to ignore what you do from now on altogether).
as for my comments i really don't care if anyone reads them or pays heed to them. i say my piece as i see it. if anyone cares fine. if not, fine again. i pointed out what i wanted to say, and the record remains.
70.19.122.39 (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
January 2011 Citation/core version by Wikid77: Well, 70.19, if you doubted my "years-long study of Citation/core", you could have politely asked for specifics, and I would have noted by 5 January 2011, I even created experimental versions, such as Template:Citation/core/sandbox2 (see: history), after discussions in 2010, 2 years ago. Since you were completely wrong about that key issue, then I ask again that you stop inventing incorrect character attacks, and focus on content of the template instead. -Wikid77 16:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing wrong with experimenting and finding ways to improve the Cite template family. It is ridiculously laborious and any attempt will probably take weeks to develop and verify. Creating templates like these is a part of that step and fully allowed and endorsed as far as i'm concerned. An 'experimental' tag might be a necessity here, but no cause for deletion. Neither are Wikid77's premature attempts at replacing current templates (either physical or in existing functionality) with his new creations a cause for deletion. The problems spotted so far are in user's behavior and even that has been not much more than slightly beyond BRD, not in disruptive regions so much that it would be a valid argument for the deletion of this template. Wikid77 would however be more successful if he took a bit more care in his experiments. Tip: Be clear about what you do, create test cases, document functionality, don't expect to be successful in the first 4 tries and be patient, while you work tireless ungrateful hours to get to a point where everyone is satisfied enough that it is no longer a problem. Which he now needs to do double as much, because he has hurt his own credibility with all this brouhaha over the past 2 weeks. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and Wikid should stop talking about timelines for deployment, that makes people nervous. It's ready when it's ready, and testcases will prove when that is. Only THEN you should set a deployment timeframe. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment of related Citation/core improvements: In conjunction with {Cite_web/smart}, I have also been working to improve the speed of Template:Citation/core for the remaining complex citations with rare parameters. As expected, the improved speed is only minor, such as with Template:Citation/core/sandbox3 running 30% faster, compared to {Cite_web/smart} running 300% faster (10x times better) for short citations. I mention this to emphasize why hopes of improving {Citation/core} should be kept to minimal expectations. I have been studying these issues for years, and perhaps waiting too long for others to fix the problems, so that is why I made such large improvements in only a "few weeks" after years of analyzing the issues with the 620 parameter references in {Citation/core}. I fully understand that years ago, people had announced the alarming performance problems, and some tried to create very simple fast templates, so at this point, we are working towards a consensus solution to support all parameters, allow new parameters sooner than PHP bugzilla upgrades, and resolve other concerns in each area. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    please stop throwing around meaningless numbers regarding speed. establish a testbed with a statistically meaningful and diverse sample of hardware/software/article components, whose results can be independently verified by others, and can be shown to (a) not lessen functionality (b) not inroduce incompatibilities (Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance#Editors still have a role to play). also, what is a "rare" parameter? all parameters used in citation/core have an underlying reason for being there. if the reason is no longer valid, they can be removed after discussion. but you should not paper over unilateral removal of parameters to justify a claimed increase in speed. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed of rendering and rarity of usage: Sorry for being so brief about the terminology, as these issues have been discussed for years, about the operation of the related templates. The "speed" refers to the number of seconds to render a template call into the equivalent markup language to format the citation, where hand-coded citations would take "0 seconds" beyond the typical half-second to render a page of 500 hand-coded citations. When saying {cite_web/smart} is 4x faster, then if {cite_web} needed 16 seconds to format 250 cites of title/author/url with date/accessdate, then {cite_web/smart} would use 4 seconds (on average). A "rare parameter" is one not frequently used in current articles, rather than "cooked rare or well-done". Typically parameters used in less than 50,000 articles can be considered relatively "rare" among the 1.1 million articles using {cite_web}. Some very rare are the Amazon Standard Identification Number "asin=" (used in 3,500 articles) or "authormask=" (used in 518 articles). However, note how all current parameters are supported by {cite_web/smart}, and I regret that people falsely claimed "reduced functionality" when the reverse is the case. So, {cite_web/smart} actually offers greater functionality to run faster, and allow new parameters by the speed gained elsewhere. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. speed: numbers claims require verification across relevant configurations and loads. only then can "averages" be established.
2. rarity: by your definition of rarity, the use of any "fast", "quick" etc. templates would be a rare occasion, since articles with more than 250 instances of citation templates (your baseline above) are indeed rare. also, do not confuse "rare" with "unnecessary" when it comes to citation parameters, especially those that provide meaningful info such as the "asin" parameter. if 1 (ONE) article needs the asin identifier in the absence of any other, then imo that is enough justification – bibliographic entries, whether they are presented through templates or not are supposed to provide information for verification and/or further research, and are integral to the article's overall quality. don't consider the rarity of the parameter, consider optimizing the code with the parameter in place. the "authormask" parameter is presentational so this is a different story. however its removal still requires discussion.
70.19.122.39 (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{cite_web/smart | title=Page title | author1=J. Won |date=9 May 2007
| authormask=3 | url=http://x.com | others=Mary Doe, CSI |asin=435}}
Result:
{{cite_web/smart | title=Page title | author1=J. Won |date=9 May 2007 | authormask=3 | url=http://x.com | others=Mary Doe, CSI |asin=435}}
No need to discuss "authormask" because it and everything already works. -Wikid77 04:31, indented 13:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rarity is missing the point. While some broken pages will be fixed, a vast number of pages render more slowly, in many cases substantially more slowly, than desirable and this will help wit that problem. It will also potentially reduce server load and associated costs and increase redundancy. The impact of wp:en:cite templates can be easily underestimated. Rich Farmbrough, 12:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, if necessary to make everyone happy, move to /sandbox4 ... The Cite templates are a work of art, but they are also major problem. They do create significant server load, they break a small number of pages, and they need functionality that can't be installed because such would break more pages. This is a potential part of a solution and should be applauded. Rich Farmbrough, 12:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
it seems that you are too eager for a savior. imo, the citation system requires way more than what Wikid77 has put on offer these past few weeks – and his communication has not been forthright. i applaud the willingness to improve the citation system, but this is where the applause ends. other than that, i agree with sandboxing them. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Working together with simple discussions: Yes, 70.19, I agree that more is needed to improve the citations. But several of us are working together part-time, and that is why the rapid progress, in the recent weeks, had increased from formatting partial parameters faster, to now handling all prior parameters, and allowing new parameters. I purposely kept communication simplified, because if I had noted how complex the work has been, or bugs in the older templates, then some people might think they should avoid the whole topic, as too confusing. Of course, if I had known weeks ago that people would demand I optimize every possible parameter, then I myself might have been scared away. Instead, by focusing on major improvements, not perfection, now we can support all prior parameters somewhat better. As for other problems, it is enough to note {Citation/core} is too slow, or too big, to use for hundreds of short citations, but there are other bugs, or missing parameters, in those templates, so while making the templates much faster, we can also fix several other template bugs besides the slow formatting. As noted above, this is not the venue to analyze those templates, just know that {cite_web/smart} is part of a revolution in better speed and allowing new parameters. That is the focus of this TfD. -Wikid77 04:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in your opinion. in my opinion, the "focus of this TfD" is whether all these new templates should be removed because they add yet another confusing and time-consuming aspect to the citation system. the point is this: does wikipedia need a citation engine? if so, that engine already exists (citation/core) and it being the basis for all CS1 templates, it should be the first to be analysed, rethought and optimized (instead of adding another layer of templates). everybody agrees that an engine should be compact, fast, and extensible. this is vital, but is a small part of the citation system, which exists for the benefit of readers, not editors or developers. first you design something that takes the readers' needs into account. then you optimize that design as much as possible. also: "short citation" may very well mean "incomplete citation". the use of extra parameters in order to find and verify the source helps the reader, and therefore completes the article. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, January 2011 Citation/core version by Wikid77: Well, 70.19, during my years-long study of Citation/core, after I created experimental versions, such as Template:Citation/core/sandbox2 (see: history), then I had concluded that not much could be gained by internal changes to {Citation/core}, so that is why the {Fcite} templates were created, then Template:Cite_quick as 10x-12x times faster than {cite_web} for limited parameters. However, I am still open to new ideas about improving {Citation/core}. Meanwhile, {cite_web/smart} has been running 4x faster, so that is why I created it, and defended it in this TfD. This is not the venue to rethink other templates, so perhaps go to Template_talk:Citation/core with your other concerns. Thanks. -Wikid77 16:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
anyone can create experimental templates that go nowhere and improve nothing. your repeated attempts suggest that maybe your time would be better spent trying something else. but that is you. others have to deal with the repercussions, cleaning after you as in the "fcite" deployment, and having to wade through unsubstantiated claims and your misrepresentations of non-existent consensus.
so here we are at "cite web smart" which Wikid77 is already promoting as an "upgrade" of "cite web". as i pointed out previously in this thread, this is basically "cite web" minus some aliases and parameters, and foregoing the a priori invocation of "citation/core". instead "citation/core" is called only when certain parameters are used in citations. this represents a radical change in the design philosophy of the CS1 system, which is basically built around the "citation/core" engine. this de facto change is proposed without any discussion of particulars. secondly, ALL declarations about gained speed are misleading: "cite web smart" testing consists of a single configuration of citations that is non-real-world (does not involve actual articles). without properly averaged results in a variety of real-world scenarios, the numbers bandied about mean nothing. Wikid77 has repeatedly tried to sell substandard and unfinished goods. i use this terminology, because his use of promotional language is grating.
  • rename the template(s) from "cite xxx smart" to "cite xxx alternate". the "smart" moniker is subjective and unproven.
  • tag all these templates as experimental and restrict them to the appropriate namespace.
  • enjoin Wikid77 from creating yet another iteration of such templates ("cite web super" could be next), and from producing yet more press releases of extraordinary results based on limited and non-diverse samples.
70.19.122.39 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current citation template system is highly problematic, so any attempt to work on alternatives should be applauded. I hope the author is allowed to refine his creations without them being regularly nominated for deletion. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SlimV. At first I thought this early TfD, hours after the template was begun, would discuss various ways to improve the operation, as "Templates for discussion" but much focus has been on "Delete" and "Deletion" (or ban me from writing templates) while I had to specially modify the new template because the TfD-tag distorts timing tests of how much faster the template is running. Every time I spent hours to find another way to make the template faster, or offer new parameters, the screen repeated the ominous warning, "This template is being considered for Deletion" which is not very inspiring for writing complex improvements. -Wikid77 08:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is getting ridiculous. I'm not even involved in the templates and I'm starting to get annoyed at how quickly these get dragged here. There is no evidence of disruption by the template we are discussing. I could see arguments for a rename, but this is excessive. There is definitely an issue. This is at least an iteration better than the mainstream in fixing the issue. Lua may be a magic bullet, but it is not yet implemented. Let's move on. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even more streamline techniques are needed: As I suspected, each major type of footnote, {cite_web}, {cite_book}, or {cite_journal} requires extremely different logic to run faster, and so multiple techniques will be needed to automatically gain speed to make various articles edit-preview in reasonable time, such as 20 seconds reduced to 8. This is complex work, requiring several templates, as stepping stones, to solve the long-delay problems. The major {Cite} templates each involve around 225 parameters, with more than 90 aliases for author/editor names. If anyone thinks, "Hey, this is trivial now, so just copy {cite_web/smart} to make journal cites faster". No, in fact, the reverse seems to be the case, where copying {cite_web/smart} for journal cites would make them run even slower than the older {Citation/core} runs now. Plus, due to all the hassles from this TfD, I have delayed further improvements. So, I appreciate those who have noted this TfD would be so disruptive to improving the CS1 citation templates. Still, there is hope to make nearly "all" articles display more than twice as fast, with all prior parameters, plus allow new options. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is WP:RefToolbar 1.0 not using Template:Cite_web? How much faster would that be, compared to {cite_web/smart} running 4x faster for short cites with just author/title/url and date/accessdate? How does post-expand include size compare for that short cite? Is it easy to add a new parameter, such as "urlw=xx.com" to put prefix "http: //www." for xx.com? -Wikid77 (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or move to a sandbox. if this is meant as a sandbox, for testing and improving cite web, then mark it as such. continuously forking templates, is however, not helpful. Frietjes (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one here is "continuously" forking anything. Plus, {cite_web/smart} as a parallel, not forked, template allows cross-comparisons between the templates to be run longer, until the change-over occurs to make {cite_web} redirect to {cite_web/smart}, and then later perhaps become the latest version of {cite_web}, with a {cite_web/old} or such for long-term comparisons. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is stated to be a work in progress. Whether it is a good idea to use it in more than a limited set of articles, whether it currently has bugs, and whether it will ever replace the current version of {{cite web}} are all irrelevant here. Attempts to develop an improved version should be unquestionably allowed. Promotion of an untested template for general usage would be another thing, but if it is claimed that the author is doing that, the remedy is to ask or require him to stop, not to delete the template. DES (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2012 (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.

Template:USVEM 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 delete. Jafeluv (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. There are no individual season articles for the club, so the template provides no navigational value. DH85868993 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No purpose. -Koppapa (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely unnecessary. – PeeJay 00:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - never seen anything like this before, and with good reason. Completely unnecessary. GiantSnowman 19:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One red link. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:05, 16 August 2012 (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.

Template:Linear timeline 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 delete. Jafeluv (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linear timeline (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I cannot fathom a need for this as a template. --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2012 (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.

Template:Flight times table 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 Delete; deleted as G7 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flight times table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete --Andrewrutherford (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2012 (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.

Template:History of Uzbekistan sidebar 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 delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Uzbekistan sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. All four links redirect to History of Uzbekistan, so it doesn't actually provide any navigation. DH85868993 (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No purpose. -Koppapa (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2012 (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.

Template:PIV templates 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 speedy delete per CSD G7, author request. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PIV templates (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. My guess is that it is a collection of templates frequently used by the creator (User:Peter I. Vardy), in which case it could be userfied. I have notified him of the nomination for deletion, so he'll probably tell us himself whether that's right or not. DH85868993 (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's obsolete and has been replaced by another in frequent use by me. Sorry, I'd forgotten that I'd created this (long time ago). Does the one I use need to be "userfied"? If so, how do I do that? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the one I use need to be "userfied"? If it's in template space (i.e. if it's called "Template:<something>"), then yes. But if you're referring to the navbox on your userpage labelled "Some templates", then no, that's fine as it is (it's already in user space, so it doesn't need to be "userfied"). DH85868993 (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2012 (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.

Template:LoM Sfn 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 speedy delete per CSD G7, author request. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LoM Sfn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. I think it's redundant to {{LoM1 Sfn}}, {{LoM2 Sfn}} and {{LoM3 Sfn}}. I also note that it's not listed in the "See also" section of the template documentation for any of the other templates in Category:Lemurs of Madagascar. DH85868993 (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a failed experiment of mine. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 11:11, 11 August 2012 (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.

Template:Rugby squad S14 player 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 delete. Jafeluv (talk) 07:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rugby squad S14 player (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rugby squad S14 start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rugby squad player country (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rugby squad country start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rugby squad country mid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rugby squad country end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The first three are unused. The last three are only used by {{Rugby squad player country}} (which itself is unused). DH85868993 (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2012 (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.

Template:User Absent 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 redirect to {{not here}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Absent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to {{Retired}} or possibly {{Wikibreak}}, depending on how it was intended to be used. DH85868993 (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2012 (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.

Template:Ski Jumping World Cup seasons top 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 delete. Jafeluv (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ski Jumping World Cup seasons top (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2012 (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.

Template:DiscogAlbumEntry 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 delete. Jafeluv (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:04, 16 August 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_11&oldid=1141876200"