Template talk:Citation style
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This template was considered for deletion on 2007 March 7. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] TfD debate
This template survived a TfD debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 02:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Blink
Is there a way to make this template BLINK?
I kid. —ptk✰fgs 10:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: Here's a BASIC program that will do the trick:
- 10 shut (eyes)
- 20 open (eyes)
- 30 goto 10
JA: I do not kid. Jon Awbrey 13:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Supposed to be on talk pages
The Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/October 2005#Template:Citation style debate allowed the template to continue only because it was a tie. Those opposed thought it was an unnecessary template because it clutters the articles since the references were present but not in a "better style" (although there are no rules on references). Those favoring retaining it said it should only be on talk pages. If applied to talk pages it makes a reference back to a talk page about the talk page! Americasroof 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed change in wording
not "would be clearer' but "might" be clearer. Otherwise it should say "an editor has proposed that the references...would be clearer. I prefer the first change for brevity. DGG 06:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. I don't know of any cleanup template that says "an editor", this template is meant to tell people to clean up the referencing style in the article, if it's incorrectly applied it can be removed. Quadzilla99 00:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- But it fails to live up to this intent, because it is too vague and overbroad. It needs to ask people to use standardized reference citations per WP:CITE. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Misplacedness
Not all of the participants in the TFD discussion who favored keeping this template suggested restricting it to talk pages. There are plenty of cleanup tags that are article pages themselves, and that's on purpose, to encourage people to deal with the problems and remove the tag when it's done. Otherwise, it will sit on the talk page and be ignored, and when the problem is corrected, no one will remove it. It's been my practice for a long time to put this tag in the reference section of the article itself, where it's not distracting people as they are just starting to read the article. It seems appropriate in an "excuse our dust, and by the way, these references might not be numbered correctly, so be careful" sort of way. If other people want to put them on talk pages, I won't stop them, but I don't like the red "you put this template in the wrong place" line to show up when I feel I am using the template appropriately. -- Beland 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I also use it and other reference templates on the article for similar reasons. Jeepday (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Update Usage
I updated the usage on the template space based on the much discussed Template:Unreferenced. I notice this template does not have a date parameter, Can someone add a date parameter? Jeepday (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Various improvements needed
This template needs a link to the Wikipedia citation standard ... somewhere ... Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 10:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please be more specific on what you beleive is missing. The template links to Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Footnotes, and Wikipedia:External links all of which are part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style and there is no Wikipedia:Citation standard so a link to that would seem kind of pointless. Jeepday (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] might
first step is to change it to might then, as there is not really a single standard--so nobody can really correctly express an imperative. DGG (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yellow?
Shouldn't this have a yellow sidebar, as it has to do with style and not content? Rocket000 10:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
