Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 13#Template:Signing

=[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 June 13|June 13]]=

== [[Template:Vcite journal]] ==

:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 after proper replacement with the relevant CS1 template. If there are parameters or data that are incompatible, please discuss on the relevant CS1 talk page to see if that information can be added or it should just be removed. Primefac (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Tfd links|Vcite book}}
{{Tfd links|Vcite conference}}
{{Tfd links|Vcite journal}}
{{Tfd links|Vcite news}}
{{Tfd links|Vcite web}}

The entire suite of vcite templates is used on 13 articles only.

{{columns-list|30em|1=

}}

This is an extremely heavy costly suite of templates to maintain (see e.g. recent maintenance request), and there really is no point in keeping those around save for a blind devotion to WP:CITEVAR. 13 articles is not worth it.

The recently (last year) deleted {{tl|cite LSA}} was deemed too costly to maintain for the same reasons, and had several hundred articles that used it. It's time to kill vcite. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging {{tl|cite LSA}}'s discussion's participants:

::Pinging {{ping|Neko-chan|Jonesey95|Gonnym|Warudo|Wugapodes|Izno}} as well as CS1 guru {{ping|Trappist the monk}} and {{user|Citation bot}} maintainer {{ping|AManWithNoPlan}} for their inputs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::To the closer: "Merge" !votes should be interpreted in light of Trappist the monk's comment (16:38, 15 June 2025) that it's not realistically feasible, nor desirable to merge e.g. vcite journal into cite journal because of parameter incompatiblity. Realistically the outcome can only be to convert vcite xxx into cite xxx, after which vcite templates will cease to be useful. They could be redirected, to have something show up for past article revision, but it'd be cleaner to just delete them and rip the band aid off completely. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete I'm honestly not that big of a fan of cites using Vancouver format as it is, and I don't feel that there's much of a reason to keep any unused/underused templates around, especially when there's a more popular alternative available. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 15:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete and replace with {{tl|cite xxx}} using {{para|vauthors}}. This is way too much overhead for 13 articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:vcite doesn't style authors as vauthors. Extremely silly, I know. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
::Ahahahahahahaha, ok, this is a pure miss for a template series supposing to follow Vancouver style. Izno (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Keep and revert. The only reason these templates are "used on 13 articles only" is that the OP went on an undiscussed removal spree. They do what they are intended to do. If someone wants CS1, they can use CS1 templates and leave these be. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:"undiscussed removal spree" because they caused a bunch of errors that couldn't be fixed otherwise. Which affected about a dozen articles maybe, often used inconsistantly when a majority of CS1 templates were already present e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009%E2%80%9310_Gonzaga_Bulldogs_men%27s_basketball_team&diff=cur&oldid=1286560732]. "Used only on 25 articles" doesn't change anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:Indeed, the difference between 13 articles and 25 articles is about 0 next to the usage of CS1, which appears to be the seeming proposed replacement. From this perspective, my normal !vote would be to delete and replace. I think I'd mostly like to echo my comment from the cite LSA discussion: there should be room for formal citation styles to have their own template sets. Izno (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Template:Cite journal etc. These templates were created in late 2009 – early 2010 by {{user|Eubulides}}, who hasn't edited since March 2010. There was a set of TfDs at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 14 (the whole page, except for the Pathnav nomination). At that time, we didn't have Lua or modules, and Eubulides appears to have created them on two grounds: (i) the heavy WP:PEIS of the main {{cite xxx}} suite; and (ii) the inability of the cite xxx suite to accept certain parameters relating to the National Library of Medicine, which are needed for certain use cases, and I now believe that (i) no longer applies; and (ii) can easily be accomodated. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
:Regarding (ii), I guess the relevant ID template is Template:NLM catalog, which given a use of 1 and apparently another potential 12 (though I haven't looked at every case) would probably not be accepted into the CS1 modules as its own identifier. {{para|id}} provides for arbitrary IDs with the expectation of use of a standard ID template specific to that ID provider. So yes, there is already accommodation.
:The motivation regarding (i) seems true, based on my memory of another editor often involving themself in citation things and since banned for unrelated reasons, IIRC. Izno (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Template:Cite journal etc. We need less variability and reducing templates is a good idea overall Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
replace {{tld|vcite ...}} templates with appropriate cs1 templates. I am opposed to merging the {{tld|vcite ...}} templates into cs1|2 because a merger implies the addition of support for {{tld|vcite ...}} parameters that are not supported by cs1|2. Arguments might be made to support some {{tld|vcite ...}} parameters in cs1|2. For example we might want to support some form of {{para|seriesvolume}} to prevent misuse of {{para|volume}}. Such support should be proposed at Help talk:Citation Style 1. —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
merge to Template:Cite journal etc.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete and replace with CS1 templates. Don't merge. There are additional parameters in these templates, but they aren't offering extra features that CS1 could benefit from. Two examples stick out. First, the vcite templates support a {{para|harvid}} parameter as an incompatible alternative to {{para|ref}} which they also support, despite the documentation advising editors not to use the templates for shortened footnotes in the first place, which is therefore advising editors to use neither parameter. There is no benefit to adding this incompatible {{para|harvid}} parameter to another template. Second, these templates have "phrase" parameters like {{para|editionphrase}}. The phrase parameters offer ways to insert custom formatting into the template's output, but there is at least a decade of consensus against doing this in the more widely used citation templates. The major citation templates would not benefit from a few dozen superfluous parameters added only for backwards compatibility. If this is what {{u|Headbomb}}'s suggestion to "{{tq|rip the band aid off completely}}" refers to, then I agree. Also, Template:Vcite and Help:Citation Style Vancouver are both related to these templates, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Delete and not merge per Trappist the monk's note about incompatibility and Rjjiii's note that vcite's formatting features are opposed by the community. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

== [[Template:Signing]] ==

The result of the discussion was redirect to Template:Unsigned. Discussion on improvements/changes to the target template can of course be held at that template's talk page. Primefac (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Tfd links|Signing|module= |type=merge}}
{{Tfd links|Unsigned|module= |type=merge}}

Propose merging Template:Signing with Template:Unsigned.

We can add a {{para|simple|yes}} to {{t|unsigned}} to output the simple formatting, which has the added benefit of taking advantage of {{tlf|unsigned}}s new features (see Module:Unsigned).

At the same time, I question the utility of having a separate template; {{tlf|unsigned}} is supposed to be a little obnoxious so you are encouraged to sign your own posts and not create work for others!

I support redirect to Template:Unsigned as a first choice, but am alright with merge to Template:Unsigned. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Redirect as first choice. If we do wind up merging, I don't think {{para|simple|yes}} is a good parameter name for this. {{para|sigonly|yes}} or {{para|nowarn|yes}} maybe? Anomie ⚔ 11:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
:I like {{para|sigonly|yes}}, if that is the route we choose :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)