Shortcuts: WS:RfC, WS:RFC, WS:R

Wikispecies:Requests for Comment

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to Requests for Comment. This space is for any conversations that might require the opinions of the community to decide policy or the application of policy. Start a new conversation. For general conversation, see Wikispecies:Village Pump.

Post a comment

If you use the title box, you don't need to put a title in the message body.

Archive
Archive

Poll: Zt- and Pt-templates to be banned?

Do you agree, that Pt- and Zt-templates (eg {{Zt3690.1.1}}) must be banned in Wikispecies? And once banned, to be renamed to {{Author, Year}}?--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This poll lasts from 28 September 2020 to 12 October 2020.

Votes:

  1. no Agree --Estopedist1 (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. no Agree --Andyboorman (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg SupportJustin (koavf)TCM 08:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Renaming of the templates is not enough. The template text (eg. "[[Template:Zt3690.1.1|{{int:Reference page}}]]") should be changed to the new name. In the articles using the template the old template name should be replaced by the new one. --RLJ (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment to @RLJ: there are several ways to manually or (semi)automatically fix the text inside the template. But first, we need consensus to ban Zt- and Pt-templates--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. no Agree --Hiouf (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. no Agree --Hector Bottai (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  7. no Agree Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  8. no Agree Burmeister (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  9. no Unnecessary I don't see the point in formally doing such a "ban". All we need is to properly publicize the naming convention for reference template. Once the renaming is done with, the problem is gone and is exceedingly unlikely to ever return! Circeus (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment While normally I would agree, there was some objection to renaming the Pt templates in particular in our last discussion on them at the Village Pump, precisely because there hadn't been a "community decision" on the matter. If this vote succeeds then this argument wouldn't hold anymore and we can actually get somewhere with renaming the templates maybe. Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Given the above, I will shift to no Agree , but I do wish we didn't have to do this hoop jump. Circeus (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
  10. Leaning to Symbol support vote.svg Support I acknowledge the issue and certainly want to see them renamed, however @Circeus: has a point and I am a little wary of too many rules when this problem could be removed by renaming and clear guidelines on various conventions here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  11. no Disagree For taxonomic journals, a template name based on the journal, issue, number, and pages is just as useful, and avoids two common problems of author-date template names: (1) there is never any ambiguity of the name, and (2) never any need to add a, b, c, etc. to disambiguate articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Even Stephen, who "pioneered" the method, had to pepper the reference sections of pages using these templates with HTML comments recording the authors so he could order and actually differentiate them without having to refer to the preview constantly. That alone is a good enough reason to avoid such a naming convention at all costs if the initiator of the idea had to use a workaround! Circeus (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
      • We would have the same problem with authors who regularly published more than one article per year, which is a great many of the important authors. There are many authors where name of author + year is not enlightening at all as to which article is meant, so I fail to see any merit in your counter-argument. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  12. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for a "ban", but Symbol support vote.svg Support for renaming all of them, according to our reference guidelines. I guess, we will find doublettes, because most editors using the author+year style did not know that other editors had already created Pt- and Zt-templates. --Thiotrix (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  13. no Agree --LamBoet (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Given this has run for two weeks I would suggest closing this in 24 hours so last comments then will tally it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Voting results: 13 participants of whom 1 participant voted "disagree", 1 participant voted "neutral" and other participants voted "agree".

Conclusion: Pt- and Zt-templates are banned and to be renamed to {{Author, Year}}--Estopedist1 (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)