Mid-way alternative?Edit

If I used the template, but input {{subst:cite news}}? That turns the reference into plain text, and dumps the whole " | word = " bit. To see what I mean, try any other another template, and add "subst:" before the name.

Those who want to use the template can use it, those who don't don't need to, and references created with a template would turn into normal, easy-to-understand stuff. Any thoughts, everyone? -- Zanimum 16:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. What's the problem with just using ref tags? -- Danny (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's more than two weeks later and Nick hasn't responded or explained why he wants to keep the template over our standard ref tags. I'm leaving a note on his talk page, but otherwise, I'd like to close this discussion. So far, it's two to one (and more importantly a strong argument for simplicity versus adding a new template that's not really self-explanatory and confusing to casual or even experienced non-Wikipedia editors), and nobody else seems to show any interest. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, delete. -- Zanimum 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cite news vs. Ref tagsEdit

Nick revived this template today, and started using it on Boombah, Zeliboba and Halum.

This template is copied from Wikipedia, and has all the usual problems with Wikipedia templates -- it's overly complicated and essentially unusable by anyone except the most experienced editors. It's also unnecessary, because citing a source is pretty easy.

Here's how the template looks on Zeliboba:

<ref>{{cite news | first = Sue | last = Harrison | title = Christie builds puppets for the world, no strings attached | curly = y | url = http://www.provincetownbanner.com/article/arts_article/_/62639/Arts/12/4/2008 | work = The Provincetown Banner and Advocate | location = Provincetown, MA | date = 2008-12-04 | accessdate = 2008-12-11 }}</ref>

Here's how it would look using our normal cite method:

<ref>"[http://www.provincetownbanner.com/article/arts_article/_/62639/Arts/12/4/2008 Christie builds puppets for the world, no strings attached]", Sue Harrison, ''The Provincetown Banner and Advocate''. December 4, 2008.</ref>

It's not hard for a new editor to look at that wikitext and see how it works -- the only things that might be unfamiliar would be the ref tags and the URL link. Using the cite news template means going to another page and copying the template, remembering to put the dates in the right format, etc.

So that's my feeling on this template. Anybody else have a thought? -- Danny (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I vastly prefer the normal cite method (though usually I include author first, just as we would with print articles and so on, but that's a minor matter). I agree that the new template just complicates things for our purposes. As has come up in the past also, the point of templates is convenience, and we have a lot of templates which haven't always been easy for new users to remember (thus Category:Templates and a page to explain their use). This particular template is more complicated, and only a convenience for longtime Wikipedia editors accustomed to doing it that way. And they're not our core user base; if anything, we've seen an increase in casual users, and when we ask them politely to cite their sources, it would help a lot if doing so is simple. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I just took these tags out of the pages that used them, and deleted the template. -- Danny (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)