Wiki90: 90s Style Encyclopedia on the Web
In this article, we will explore in depth all the facets related to Template talk:Wikipedia referencing, addressing its importance in different contexts and analyzing its possible implications for our daily lives. Throughout history, Template talk:Wikipedia referencing has played a crucial role in the development of various disciplines, and its relevance continues to be debated today. From its origins to its evolution in the modern era, we will examine its influence on society, culture, science, technology and many other aspects of our daily lives. Through an interdisciplinary approach, we aim to shed light on the different aspects that make up Template talk:Wikipedia referencing, delving into its implications and offering a comprehensive vision that allows us to understand its scope and relevance today.
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should remove the footnote1, footnote2, footnote3, and footnote4 links as well as the supporting "Italics indicate deprecated or obsolete content." row. I just don't see that this long-since obsolete material would be useful enough to editors to be worth cluttering up the template. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I removed the link to Embedded citations from this template (at 15:19, 26 October 2017) -- PBS (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page:
I know that embedded citations are outdated but couldn't the link be kept in the navbox in some "historical" section since it's still a page relevant to the template?★Trekker (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (whether to keep a link to Wikipedia:Embedded citations in an historical section): |
Greetings, ★Trekker and PBS! I have read through the conversation here and agree with PBS's recommendation to remove the link to WP:Embedded citations from the navbox. In my opinion, including it in its original location gives it a significance it does not warrant given its status as an inactive policy. A historical section would be better, but even though I agree that the likelihood of someone using inline citations as a result of seeing it in a historical section is pretty low (I could think of far easier ways to edit perniciously than to correctly use inline citations), to be honest I think a historical section serves only to make the template longer than it needs to be. It's my opinion that we should keep the template as a quick reference for relevant policies, advice, and documentation. That being said, I think a historical section in the template documentation, which would be visible on WP:Embedded citations itself, is a great place to include historical information on what was at one point part of the template. I could even see adding a summary and/or links to discussions as to why they are no longer included. That would certainly provide the curious types with better information than they would get by a simple historical section of the navbox, and keep the navbox as succinct and relevant as possible. What do the two of you think? CThomas3 (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC) |