Project:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Template:Cite doi

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to File:Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Chenzw Talk 17:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cite doi[change]

Template:Cite doi (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Template:Cite pmid (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Osiris has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This template isn't able to function on this site. Neither Citation bot nor its owner are active on here, so editors will simply have to fill out the ciations themselves.

It is used on 10 pages, all of which (obviously) are listed in its error category: Category:Pages with incomplete DOI references. Osiris (talk) 12:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change]

I've filled out all instances manually. I've also found another template with the same issue: {{cite pmid}}. Will replace instances of this one tomorrow. Osiris (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Osiris (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you had to do that. Many thanks for your work. Racepacket (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep - the answer is to copy over the bot that handles these from English Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Are you going to do that? Because until that happens these templates are completely useless, and they're generating an error category. Osiris (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  - Would someone with access to English Wikipedia please contact the bot operator? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Comment This creates a "carousel of complexity" for a reader to try to follow, does it not?

If I parse the issue correctly, this citation format has no likely use for someone who doesn't understand it. Are we wrong to guess that potential readers who might consult our medicine-related articles are unlikely to know about this cite system nor about how to figure it out. Is it not meaningless without investing research in something other than the subject at hand? --Horeki (talk) 03:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea is sound. You cite an article using a unique number (doi or pmid) and then the bot looks up the rest od the citation and finishes the footnote reference for you. This is a long-standing template on en wikipedia. It is invisible to the reader when it works properly (i.e., if the bot serves both English and Simple Wikipedia.) Racepacket (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As context, related stub articles may be helpful? --Horeki (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

System-created links

No automatic links

Until the bot is operational on simple, any citation using the template will just result in the doi/pmid number, followed by a message: This citation will be automatically completed in the next few minutes. You can jump the queue or expand by hand.

You might as well just use {{cite journal|doi=}} since this will get the same (incomplete) result minus the permanent (and inaccurate) message. Osiris (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment In its current state it is useless because the bot has to do the work of creating the subpages for the template to work when people add it. What might be a helpful suggestion would be to ask the bot op if he is willing to run his bot here. As a crat I am likely to approve it petty easily since he has an extensive history of its use on en. So if someone wants to keep them I suggest they contact the bot op on en. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please help me by contacting the bot operator on en and asking him to expand the scope of the bot's scan to include Simple? I would appreciate it. It will save us a lot of busywork when bringing over science-related articles from English Wikipedia. Many thanks! Racepacket (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone actually contacted the bot op? Chenzw Talk 10:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not for obvious reasons. I have asked others to do so. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologise, I didn't realise you were banned. I will leave a message with the maintainer today. However, it's not going to happen overnight. Since the templates are no longer being used and would create inappropriate messages in articlespace if used, I still recommend deleting them. We can import them again if and after a bot is written up. Osiris (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This can probably be deleted now. The bot operator hasn't replied and his userpage suggests that he is busy with RL. I've got his page watchlisted, but this shouldn't need to sit here waiting for a reply. Until a bot is written up for this, Racepacket appears to be the only editor objecting to these templates' deletion. Osiris (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 12:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.