Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 31

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< March 30 April 1 >

March 31 edit

Template:Euphoria Engine games 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The articles of this navbox are only very loosely related and do not "refer to each other to a reasonable extent". It is not the case that "if not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." (WP:NAVBOX) czar 20:24, 31 March 2018 (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).

Template:Match of the Day 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Seems that the original concerns have been dealt with, but there is no strong desire either way. NPASR with a new rationale. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a list of TV presenters it fails WP:PERFNAV. --woodensuperman 09:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I agree as it stands it is of limited use. However, I wonder if it could be improved by adding a section for spin-offs and related programmes (eg Match of the Day Kickabout, the US version and the Scottish programme Sportscene which until historically had strong links with the programme)? Dunarc (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It could be re-purposed, but would there be enough of these spin-offs to warrant a navbox? WP:NENAN. --woodensuperman 09:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 19:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I am not sure. As well as those I mentioned there is Match of the Day 2 and The Football League Show which have articles and some others like Match of the Seventies, which do not. An argument could be made for including the ITV attempt The Premiership. Dunarc (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any entries would have to be directly related to the subject (i.e. a spin-off, etc.), which an ITV show would not be. --woodensuperman 16:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2018 (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).

Template:Infobox emblem 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).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Infobox emblem. Note that the consensus below is to use the text of {{infobox coat of arms}} but the name at {{infobox emblem}}. Please ensure forward/backward compatibility for existing transclusions, and that a redirect is left. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox emblem with Template:Infobox coat of arms.
Pretty much the same thing. The only extra variable "badge" should be added to Template:Infobox coat of arms. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 18:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - please stop proposing merges on topics you do not understand. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Infobox emblem - In practice, the emblem infobox is often used for coats of arms. I see no reason why the two should be separate. Ibadibam (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge one to the other. {{Infobox_emblem}} only has 19 transclusions vs 650 for the other; either way one should redirect to the other, since {{infobox emblem}} appears to be a fork and is not much different, except that instances of |Image 1= should be changed to |Image=. Choosing the merge target is really a titling matter; {{Infobox emblem}} seems better, though the code of {{Infobox coat of arms}} would be mostly copied over.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The templates are largely redundant, I agree with the above; the content should be merged mostly from the "coat of arms" template, but the title of the merged template should be the "emblem" template. --Jayron32 16:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If so, though, probably also a "type" variable should be introduced also in order to let the template indicate whether presenting a coat of arms, emblem, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2018 (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).

Template:Fort Lauderdale Strikers squad 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the team is defunct Joeykai (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2018 (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).

Template:Cleanup partial cites 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:49, 8 April 2018 (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).

Template:Essayproposal 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).

The result of the discussion was mark historical. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essays and Proposed-Guildline/Policies are fundamentally different. Essays argue a case, they welcome authors' opinions. Guildines and Policies are the opposite in this respect, they are supposed to be written in clear objective language and focus on actionable decisions. An essay may support a proposed guideline, but the essay support for the guideline is not the guideline. Similarly, a failed proposal should not be "demoted" to an "essay", but should be archived as a failed idea. The essay hosting the opinions underlying the failed proposal may remain valid. Converting valid opinions into actionable guideline is non-trival and may fail for any number of reasons that don't undermine the opinions in the essay.

It is important to put an end to this template and to create a clear line between policy proposal pages and essays.

I proposed that this essay be archived, pseudodeleted, and never used again. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 14:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with proposer.....this has not been used in years. Back in the day we did it like this....but policies from scratch rarely happens now. PS will need some clean up if deleted....ping me I will do this. --Moxy (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 11:57, 31 March 2018 (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).

cnote 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose replacing uses and deleting Template:Cnote, Template:Cref, Template:Cnote2, Template:Cref2, Template:Cnote2 Begin and Template:Cnote2 End.
These templates seem inferior to the less coupled, auto-numbered {{efn}}/{{notelist}} family of templates. Almost every use I've seen would be improved using {{efn}}.

I also note a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 4#Template:Cref2. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 06:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not super familiar with the process formulation (this is my first TfD), so help is appreciated. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 06:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – from my comments at the previous October 2011 discussion: Cref2 appears to be the only way to have more than one instance of an explanatory note that includes references (for example, as in Battle of the Nile#Notes). I tried experimenting with the {{efn}} equivalent using {{NoteTag}} and {{NoteFoot}}, but there's no option to produce tags of the form "Note A", "Note a", "Engine Note 1", etc., but rather only "Note 1". However, a more major problem is that it also seems to produce a spurious backlink (the c backlink at User:Mojoworker/sandbox3, when used with the long footnotes (list-defined references) format. For those reasons, I think the CRef2 family needs to stay, since there's no working replacement that I know of. If the CRef2 template family are not dependent on the older CRef and CNote, I have no problem with deleting those. Mojoworker (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I find this proposal unclear, and not well organized. E.g., "replacing and deleting" presumably means replacing uses of these templates, and then deleting the templates themselves, but that requires a fair amount of interpolation, and possibly not what was intended. I would also expect a fuller statement of the case presented for deletion, the impacts of deletion (e.g., how many articles curently use these templates?), and proposed mitigation.
I suggest an alternative: discussion of whether these templates should be deprecated, meaning that their use should be discouraged, and use of better templates encouraged. If that is acceptable, then we could explore how to approach deletion. Possibly this venue is not the best place for that discussion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in the use figures, as suggested. Their use is quite small compared to {{efn}} and {{notelist}}, which have 41450 transclusions and 46110 transclusions respectively. I am going to investigate the concerns that Mojoworker presents more closely. I am admittedly inexperienced, so you may be correct that this is too early to have a discussion here, but I just wanted to discuss what looked to me like a template use where {{efn}} would suffice. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 22:03, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am inclined to agree that efn is superior to cnote/cref, and that we ought to have a discussion about this, with a view towards eventual deletion. But to propose deletion right off, as you have done, is quite premature. I would suggest striking that, and focus on the discussion. ~ ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do mostly agree, but I'm very close to developing a fast algorithm for replacing the templates in unambiguous cases. After I eliminate all of the unambiguous cases, what's left can be discussed. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's well and good to develop an automated method of converting the unambiguous cases, but I request that your algorithm should most definitely not move long notes inline as you did here, since it makes the text difficult to edit. Also don't inline any notes with nested refs – it moves the ref number out of order on the page: your edit changed ref 31 (the last ref on the page) to be ref number 21, even though the reference in the displayed text is at the very end of the page in the note and should be the very last ref displayed. Mojoworker (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this comment. This makes my below comment less relevant, though it still summarizes my rationale. I agree with your logic about ref numbering (though as an aside, refs in footnotes seem somewhat dubious for several reasons: footnotes are adding extra information to existing content, so the ref should be where the content is, and if the footnote is detailed enough to need 1 or more references separate from the text, the information probably shouldn't be in a footnote. But I digress, and you're welcome to disagree with me.) For the cases where footnotes contain references, I will ensure the footnotes are defined at the bottom. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@E to the Pi times i: Thanks. I only looked at the first couple of instances – can you check the others you've done to see if the ref locations need to be fixed? As to "probably shouldn't be in a footnote", I guess that's often an editorial or stylistic decision, but sometimes is absolutely necessary. Look at "Note A" in the Battle of the Nile article linked above – the explanatory note is for a field in the infobox, so there's no way that could be moved from the note. But yeah, we're digressing. Mojoworker (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Mojoworker: I note two of your reverts. I am amicable to tweaking my replacement strategy, but I would prefer to discuss it first. My rule of thumb has generally been to generally put footnotes inline, as this consolidates the information for the editor, and prevents future edits from accidentally miscopying the footnote (I've seen many accidentally copied notes while I've been reviewing footnote references.) Visual distraction from length is not a huge consideration, given that normal references already present the same distraction, and they're normally inline. The only potential concern I can see with having them inline is an argument from Wikipedia:Citing sources, which says "When an article is already consistent, avoid changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist.". I do not believe my changes to inline to in violation of that guideline, because references and footnote references seem functionally equivalent for the purpose of that rule.

Also, if references need to be tweaked (e.g. moved from the body to the end, or vice versa), I have a script that expedites that process, so if a change is extensive (or even if it's not), just link me to that page. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 02:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your efforts to improve things (and to discuss them here) – I don't think anyone wants things to be needlessly complex. I view explanatory notes as different beasts than normal references. They are often quite verbose, sometimes individual notes are referenced multiple times in an article, and in my experience, they are usually defined in the notes section at the bottom of the article. Moving them inline may solve some problems, while causing others, making them difficult to find if they're not in the expected place. It's my preference to leave them in the notes section at the bottom if that's where you found them in a given article. Mojoworker (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to mention above, when I've been switching formats, footnotes that are referenced multiple times have been preserved at the bottom. This strategy is to allow editors to (in theory) distinguish between footnotes that have been referenced multiple times and a single time by the wikitext. And, I must also revise what I previously said to note that the policy I quoted actually doesn't technically apply to footnotes, (though it probably should, if the consensus on referencing location consistency hasn't changed.) For future template transitions, I will preserve footnotes at the bottom. It's mostly easier to do (besides having to do descriptive names for the footnotes, but I have a plan for handling that). E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 12:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give an update, I've been tracking down a bug that causes false backreferences in {{efn}} notes. It seems to related to having references within {{efn}} footnotes, specifically named references without content, when efn's are defined in the notelist. See User:E to the Pi times i/sandbox#Example 6: name-defined footnotes with name defined reference; note that backreference b for note a is a false backreference. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the same problem I mentioned in User:Mojoworker/sandbox3 above. Let us know if you figure out the problem. Mojoworker (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your feedback. I previously noted the problem on your subpage; I just wanted to isolate the source of the problem further. I will give another update when I define the problem more clearly, and have devised a potential solution. Currently, I'm thinking a LUA module may be the future for footnotes, since I notice some harmful redundancy in the current devising of {{efn}}. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns on the ambiguous uses of the term "references" (e.g.: what's a "normal references"?), and particularly "footnote references". But it may take a couple of days to put together a cogent explanation.

Also: I would caution against any "solution" that uses "named-refs" (the "<ref name=" construction). ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Johnson: When I said "normal reference", I was referring to a source reference like a book, website, or journal. Regarding the couple of days comment, the situation is definitely more complex (and more convoluted) than I had previously imagined, so I would anticipate that to be the case. I am curious why and in what context you would recommend against named refs? E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend against using named-refs in all contexts. Their reason for existence is for "re-using" footnotes (notes), where what editors really want is to "re-use" a citation to a source. (See my comment just below.) They make it harder for later editors to add additional citations to a source because one may have to search through the entire wikitext to find the "name" for that "reference", and they break if the master named-ref is not in the section one is editing. They also preclude adding in-source specfication (e.g., page numbers)(unless one resorts to the ugly {rp}), merging multiple citations into one note, or adding explanations of applicability (etc.) of a source at a particular point. (Among other problems.) And if a section containing a master named-ref is deleted any slave named-refs in other sections are then orphaned. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... until AnomieBOT fixes the problem. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@J. Johnson: We may be talking about 2 different things here. When we've been talking about "footnotes" in this thread, we're referring specifically to {{efn}}-style footnotes, where the content is not a citation source, but is more detailed information deemed not suitable for the main article. To dip briefly into named-references issue, I do agree named references can cause problems later on when things get moved and deleted, but the same thing can happen to references in the references list that {{harv}}'s would refer to. As to the other issues, I do agree that {{harv}}'s are generally superior, and it would be preferable if we could change most articles to using that style, but we still run into the CITEVAR issue I mentioned below. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that an extended comment on some point in an article might be best handled in a note separate from the mass of in-line citations, the characterization of {{efn}} as being for explanatory footnotes tends to reinforce the incorrect notion (described below) that <ref> style notes are 1) restricted to, and 2) required for, in-line citations. As to CITEVAR, it could be argued that CITEVAR requires per-article consensus to remove cnote. Showing that short-cites (such as done with Harv) are superior might help get that consensus.
Sure, short-cites (whether using Harv templates or any other form) can also become orphaned if the full citation they link to is an a note that gets deleted. The solution for that is collect the full citations into their own section (such as "Sources"), where they are less likely to get whacked, and can be better managed. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: You may want to revise your comment, given that {{ref label}}/{{note label}} have been obsoleted (see their template pages). E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 16:03, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My comment stands. The family of template I said they are redundant to was declared obsolete in favor of standard ref tags. Regardless of whether or not these pseudo-<ref> templates should exist, there should not be two sets of them. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about the list-defined references with nested footnotes issues mentioned above? Do you know of a solution (that actually works) other than CRef2/CNote2? If not, then those are not redundant. Mojoworker (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments re nested footnotes.
Simple answer re the 'nested footnotes' problem: don't "nest" footnotes.
The supposed need to nest notes arises from the bad (albeit all too common) practice of creating "references" to a source by stuffing a citation (such as created using {{cite xxx}} or {{citation}}) into a note (created using <ref> tags), and then trying to "re-use" the ambiguously defined "reference" in a note by reiterating the citation-within-a-note process. Alternatively, multiple "references" to a source can be done using short-cites (such as with {{harv}} templates). The real problem is that most (?) editors do not realize that "ref" tags are not needed to make "references". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@J. Johnson: The problem Mojoworker is referring to happens with multiple refs are inside one another, like {{efn|This is a note that has something referenced inside it.<ref>A reference</ref>. What is your proposed modification to currently existing refs within notes? Replacing them all with {{harv}}s, like {{efn|This is a note that has something referenced inside it.{{harv|last|year}} }} [...] {{Cite xxx ... |ref=harv}} What about articles that already use the <ref> style? Remember, WP:CITEVAR, "When an article is already consistent, avoid changing where the references are defined, e.g. moving reference definitions in the reflist to the prose, or moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist". Would it just be an executive IAR to change the reference style to harv to support references within footnotes for articles with footnotes? This seems dubious, and likely to be challenged. (03:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC):) Fixed inconsistencies in examples. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 23:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your example appears to have an extraneous "</ref>", but aside from that, yes, that is what I would suggest. I don't know what you mean by "What about articles that already use the <ref> style"; it is perfectly fine if they use <ref> ("notes") already. Are you perhaps conflating the use of the {{Harv}} family of templates (perhaps it would be better to specify {{Harvnb}}?) with the Harvard referencing style, a form of parenthetical referencing that is distinguished from the note (footnote/endnote) style? I am not at all suggesting use of Harvard referencing, and the use of "harv" templates does not require that.
Please note how the ambiguous use of "references", and particularly the common notion of a "reference" as a citation wrapped in a footnote (i.e., within <ref> tags), makes your "references within footnotes" inherently recursive. That is what casues the problem, and precisely what I recommend NOT doing. Which would be clearer if we distinguish "re-use" (or mulitple use) of a citation from "re-use" of a note containing a citation. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@J. Johnson: I'm sorry you find my use of "references" ambiguous. I believe I have used the terminology consistently. To avoid future confusion, I will define how I have been using terminology:
  • "normal reference"/"reference": any type of source reference (book, AV media, journal, website, etc.)
    • By default, I am referring to references explicitly defined in <ref></ref> tags (i.e. not transcluded in a template)
      • In future, I will refer to this as "source reference" or in more specific cases "<ref>-style source reference"
  • "footnote reference": any type of extended prose that has been put into a footnote (anything that can be put into an {{efn}})
    • I do realize how this can be ambiguous, so in future I will use "EFN footnote" to refer to this concept.
If you would like me to change the way I'm using terminology, or introduce additional terminology, just tell me what terminology you want me to use and I will be more specific.
Now, regarding the {{harv}}-family ({{harvnb}}, you said?) citation templates, I am not conflating this with Harvard referencing. Admittedly, I have not used {{harv}} or {{harvnb}} specifically, but I have used {{sfn}}. What I am saying is that changing an article from <ref>-style source references to {{harv}}-style source references would in many cases, as I understand it, involve "moving reference definitions from the prose into the reflist", violating CITEVAR. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 03:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you have not taken offense that I object to this wide-spread view of "references". And I hope I might bring you around to a different view.
Your notion of "references explicitly defined in <ref></ref> tags" is precisely the point to which I object. <ref> tags are one way of producing notes (footnotes, endnotes). They are NOT restricted to citations (whether full or short); the only restriction is to not include (directly or indirectly) other <ref> tags. Furthermore, citations – whether full citations that describe a source, or short-cites that link to a full citaton – do NOT require <ref> tags. (Proof by demonstration: see Siletzia#Notes, where several notes contain explanatory comments, and Siletzia#Sources, where all of the full citations are done without using <ref> tags. If you scroll up just a bit you can also see short-cites in the text, again without use of <ref> tags.)
In particular: "<ref>-style" and "{harv}-style" are not alternative "styles" such as an article can be switched from one to the other; they do different things. Using {Harv} is an alternative to named-refs; it can be used with or without notes.
There is no need to define a "reference" as requiring <ref> tags, and doing so leads to several problems including a need for named-refs, and this problem of nested footnotes. Not defining "reference" that way eliminates these problems, and particularly resolves the problem for which {cnote} (etc.) is allegedly a solution. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@J. Johnson: I understand exactly what you're saying about references, and I mostly agree.
I agree very strongly with deprecating {{rp}}, but I think the major barrier to that is the current variety of citation templates. There is not a sole clear alternative, or a coherent list explaining all of the different alternatives. In the near future (hopefully, I may get busier), I plan to propose specific consolidations of redundant referencing templates, after I've examined it more closely. @Primefac: As the original poster of this TfD, I think this discussion has strayed from the topic of the current TfD, and I think this TfD should be closed as keep for now, to be reopened when the issues with EFN have been addressed. Mojoworker already expressed Keep for this very reason, J. Johnson has suggested this TfD is premature, and Pppery's Delete avoids the issue of existing articles with citations within explanatory footnotes. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 00:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, my !vote did not "[avoid] the issue of existing articles with citations within explanatory footnotes", because that is specific to <ref>...</ref> tags and the various templates that wrap them, and despite their confusing names, {{ref}} and its family does not use that system. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: The issue is that replacing cref with EFN is not a simple substitution because of the issues with recursive enclosed references. Your earlier comment was "don't "nest" footnotes", which doesn't address how to modify existing articles that nest references. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 00:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested replacing {{cref}} with {{efn}}, I suggested replacing it with the functionally identical template {{ref}}. Also, I never said the words "don't "nest" footnotes", they were said by J. Johnson {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: Hmm, that may change things... I apologize for my misreading of the discussion, I was relying on memory. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 00:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: My request for closure still stands, unless you are planning to automate a process for replacement, because I do not currently plan to replace using that method. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 01:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Johnson: If you have any further discussion, or replies to my most recent comment, you can say them at my talk page. E to the Pi times i (talk | contribs) 00:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be inadvisable to simply delete {cnote} (etc.) without dealing with the current uses, and there was a strong implication that {efn} might be an acceptable replacement (though "not a simple substitution"). (Dealing with the "nesting" issue shows how <ref> <ref>-style notes is also an acceptable replacement.) I am okay with closing this discussion (and possibly continue on the fundamental issues elsewhere), but I would suggest closure as "premature", "withdrawn", or "unresolved". Or "temporary keep", as I think we have consensus these templates should go away, just not quite yet. Could we do Deprecated? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree, except the Dealing with the "nesting" issue shows how <ref> is also an acceptable replacement – see: WP:Nesting footnotes#What does not work. Also note WP:Nesting footnotes#4. List-defined references and long-standing bug phab:T22707. In my experience, the #tag:ref "kludge" mentioned in T22707 works only for the first entry in a list-define reference section (see: List of American Civil War battles#Notes for example). Maybe we should just move Cref2/CNote2 to refn2 or efnnote2 or something (only half joking). Mojoworker (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was I not clear enough? There is no question that <ref> tags – i.e., "footnotes", as well as any construction that uses them – cannot be nested inside of <ref> tags. But please note: the supposed problem of "nesting" results from insisting on wrapping (quite unnecessarily) <ref> tags around citations to make "references", which then can't be used in <ref>-style notes. Cnotes tries to fix this by removing <ref> at the upper level of notes; I say remove <ref> from the citations.
To address @E to the Pi times's comment: in some cases the modification of an existing article is simply unwrapping the existing citations, and replacing uses of 'cnote' with <ref>-style notes. {efn} probably is also be adequate. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I wasn't clear either – in regard to nesting, I was referring to references inside explanatory notes as in Battle of the Nile#Notes Note A. But, yeah, I think this can be closed. Mojoworker (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2018 (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).

Template:Lauren Jauregui 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2018 April 8. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:27, 8 April 2018 (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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_31&oldid=835914743"