Knowledge (XXG):Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 11

894:. I agree that tweets are cited far too often in Knowledge (XXG). But I don't believe that tweets should NEVER be cited. The existence of the template doesn't encourage people to use more tweets in citations, and removing it will not stop them. The editors who do this are simply not paying attention to the content guidelines. The deletion of the template may result in users poorly documenting their citation or not documenting it at all. That would be to the detriment of the Encyclopedia. I recently stumbled upon this template when I saw a tweet cited as a reference in an college basketball article to which I was contributing. The editor who cited it had documented it poorly as a simple external link. My initial reaction was to find a better source and remove it. After digging further, I concluded that for the first time after roughly 10,000 edits, it was appropriate to cite this particular tweet. It so happens that the tweeter, Jason Quick, is a journalist for 1293:. The advantage of having a separate template for tweets (or anything else) is standardising the output of citations, having more sensible parameter names, and having specific documentation for the specific source or type of source. Cite twitter provides parameters for both real names and usernames, where there isn't obvious way to include both in cite web; shows in its documentation that the title should be the whole of the tweet (per APA and other style guides), which isn't obvious in cite web; sets "Tweet" as the type rather than placing Twitter in the publisher position (which it isn't as tweets are self published), which isn't obvious in cite web (which has an attractive 1416:: I found this template wanting to cite a tweet which had been reported in secondary sources but where I thought it would be useful for readers to see the original tweet being referenced as well as the secondary source (which had no direct link or verbatim quote). I think it's absolutely correct for the documentation to warn that tweets are rarely good sources, but people will cite Twitter with or without this template, and looking for its transclusions (or even having the template automatically categorize articles using it) may be a useful way to find improper use of Twitter as a source. — 1877:

of California. I would also argue that the breakdown of equipment is vital to understanding the department. A department on the east coast of the US, in a major city is going to have a vastly different fleet of vehicles than that of one on the west coast in wildfire territory. Just like a department in the heart of London would be vastly different than one out in the countryside. I use this all the time. This information helps those interested in the subject to understand it. Otherwise I think your argument could be applied to almost every Infobox on here. For example

4967:"only admins can set article style" is false. The article styles are initially set by the first editor who creates a page. They can be changed through consensus in a discussion on the article's talk page, or based on strong national ties (using American-style dates on an article geographically related to the United States, for example). It is true that one needs to be an admin or hold the template editor user right to create or change an edit notice for an article, but this is not the same as setting the style in use in the article. 1131:- These are old and chewed arguments that have been proven wrong earlier. Twitter should be used with caution, and only in cases when the account owner is notable. Since more and more notable people use Twitter to issue statements directly, we should use it more AS A PRIMARY SOURCE, while keeping in mind the utmost importance of secondary sources - again, with the same amount of caution. These are not mutually exclusive. I would rather cite a @WhiteHouse tweet than the New York Times, for example. 4435:

template, by putting it unknown months into the future (unless there is a consensus on how long to leave an uncited statement before deleting, in which case, that should be the only option for this template); we create more work for everyone by having to make sure this template has a future date or reverting a mangling by a bot every time someone adds it to an article; or we delete this to prevent work that would be better spent improving Knowledge (XXG).

1208:. Citing specifically as a tweet, rather than as a generic web link, allows its processing to be made more specific. It is easier to use, as its parameters can be simplified. It is more specific, thus its output can be tailored more to suit tweets alone. It can even categorise articles as those citing tweets. This sort of nested abstraction is second nature to anyone with even simple programming experience – and MediaWiki is after all still an IT system. 1940:

separately, and for anything except a very local department, listing the various administrative jurisdictions is also a bad idea. Let's just give the place where it's based (for example, my parents live down the village street from the fire station, so give the name of the village, but omit the surrounding townships that the department serves) and a single number for the total number of vehicles of every type of apparatus.

282:: "If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion." And not having this template isn't going to stop people from citing tweets inappropriately, I would have thought that most of those would be from less experienced editors not using templates or using cite web from the Ref Toolbar menu. - 3562:. These templates in their uncollapsed state are far too big and obtrusive, getting in the way of the content of articles to which they are only marginally relevant. And as pointed out above, it's normally bad form to collapse article content like this. These templates should be reframed as regular content in one article to which they are highly relevant, and other articles should simply link to that article. — 4922: 1114:- Per the well thought-out questions and answers by Drmies and Izno above. Bottom line: Twitter is rarely a reliable, independent source. Twitter exercises no editorial control, and precious few tweeters are professional journalists, authors, historians, etc.; all of the characteristics that make a blog questionable as a reliable source also apply to tweets several times over. 3221:- I don't see any policy or guideline that says "templates must not include any maps". So, this is a spurious TfD as far as I am concerned. These templates are eminently valuable for transcluding a standardized collection of content across several pages. It might be that nobody ever used templates to transclude images but, if so, JJ deserves an award for innovation, not a TfD! 6435:: This is not the way aircraft nav boxes are supposed to work, the blue links are not to key program articles or to other aircraft types. Given this is only a design proposal the redlinks are unlikely to be written. The use of the poster in the box makes it far to big and detracts greatly. If this were cleaned up properly it would have only two links. - 1887:: no need to include the wheelbase, height, weight, etc. in the infobox, it will be listed in the article. You see my point? To be clear (I know tone is so hard to read from plain text) I do not mean to personally attack you in any way! I am simply trying to point out the flip side of your argument. Looking forward to continuing the discussion. -- 424:

Tweets. If this template is deleted, if an editor thinks a Tweet is worth citing, he or she will just use the "cite web" template. Thus, the proposal for deletion is utterly without merit. Secondary sources which mention Tweets often do not provide a link to them, so Knowledge (XXG) has to provide the links itself for the sake of completeness. –

3130: 2741: 1480:: There are often times where twitter is the only verifiable source of information, especially concerning details for biographical articles. For example, the only verifiable source I could find (IE other than blog entries) for the funeral details of a recently deceased academic, was his college's twitter account. As per 4814:

to require administrator action to change article style, and the template takes up too much valuable screen space. Screen space is at a premium while editing articles because of the need to refer to facts and bibliographic information in other windows. The screen space point could be made about other

3665:

of Beckwith's book). And this simplification, bordering on misinformation, is not really the fault of the template/image creators (many of whom I have collaborate with and respect), but an unavoidable feature of trying to present complex information predominantly through graphics (Cf, the usual jokes

2869:

The table is currently transcluded in only two articles, and the effort saved by creating a template simply does not justify the cost paid in terms of accessibility; difficulty in editing; and the reader being confronted with a completely parallel (and duplicative) set of references. The table itself

2182:

my previous comments made a lot more sense in my head... and late at night... Rereading that I would have to agree with you. No point in having multiple templates when one template can be used. I support merging the these two templates. That being said, I don't think that any modifications need to be

1939:

one transclusion because it was only being used to provide the service's phone number, and that means that there's only one remaining transclusion: we shouldn't have single-use infoboxes. No vote on the other suggestion. I do agree with Alakzi that we shouldn't go listing all the types of apparatus

1876:

I think you make a good point about the location. My rationale for that is that (at least in the United States) fire service is largely based on mutual aid that runs up the chain of locations. So for example, Santa Barbara City, responds with Santa Barbara County which in turn responds with the State

1394:

is also what I think (make that 11 EZCHI). I find this a very useful template which helps to cut down on the amount of text needed to input on a page. More importantly it also standardizes the listing of tweets, and standarization of references is a valuable thing to do. It costs little space to have

605:

Nope, not silly at all. No one is "resorting" to Twitter, the whole point is that Twitter has grown large enough to gain reputation in official circles as well. The CIA has an account. The White House has an account. Senators have accounts. All that in the US alone. Presidents, Kings, Prime Ministers

438:

Then the valid sources should reference them, not use tweets as a primary source. If an editor cites a tweet, a bot will revert it. This is why the template is dangerous. The template overrides the bot that prevents non-reliable sources from being added. If this continues, the bot will need to be

4984:

Use of this template is optional, but it can serve as a good reminder for editors. Featured Articles/Lists are reviewed for internal formatting consistency, and yet editors don't always take the time to look to see which styles of dates/citations/etc are in use. I've had to mop up after well-meaning

3244:

page? Content should always be included clearly so that it is open to debate and consensus formation and this - just looking at the long list of pages where it is transcluded - doesn't meet that requirement. The view presented by JJ on IE migration is the generally accepted one and I agree with that

3235:

Kautilya3, JJ has done a splendid job with the maps and I quite like the succinct way in which the information is presented. It is definitely very clear.. But, it is not a good idea to use templates for content purposes because they are indirectly adding content rather than directly doing so. Where,

567:

Care to prove your "statistic"? If the twitter accounts belong to Bryan Danielson and Papa Rome then the citation is legitimate. In the passport case, it would have been legitimate to use the twitter account of the embassy, for example; using someone's anecdotal evidence is just silly, regardless of

484:

The current documentation doesn't appear to require (or even suggest) for a real name to be included, for example. Also, to counter your argument (about a large red box), the template doesn't work unless you use the specific non-obvious params (just using `url` doesn't fly), so, it's not like anyone

3823:

pages alone is sufficient to keep it (as opposed to maintaining the complex references situation in two separate instances). Even if it was only used on a single page, you would not "delete" it, because you want to preserve the edit history (you would instead "merge" it, leaving behind a redirect).

3640:

In presenting the information through bare images with some added notes thrown in, the templates flatten the subject, and leave the mistaken impression that the geographical boundaries shown and the quoted dates are somehow universally accepted facts, ignoring the varying schools of thought on the

3378:

I have read pretty much all the pages where these templates appear. I can vouch for the fact that they work brilliantly, brining to life the various geographic regions mentioned on the pages. I haven't found any problem with the templates being collapsed or expanded. (There was a problem initially

3261:

You certainly have a point that the template's talk page would be less well-travelled. But the counterpoint is that the template makes it possible to keep all the pages consistent. If the material is duplicated on several pages, then it would be harder to maintain. You can fix it in one place, but

1145:

Except they aren't proven wrong, and your assertion otherwise is incorrect or at least untruthful. No one disagrees that Twitter is a primary source nor that it should be used with caution; what is disagreed on is the need for this template, and specifically this template. See my previous response

898:

who covers the Portland Pilots. He posted this tweet a day before he wrote an article for the newspaper confirming it. Jason Quick is clearly a reliable source for this topic. The existence of the template made it easy to document the source and produced a clear reference. What is wrong with that?

5745:

has the following twenty additional parameters: motto; type; grades; region; country; location; coordinates; president; vice-president; asst_superintendent; accreditations; us_nces_district_id; faculty; teachers; staff; ratio; conference; mascot; colors; and schedule. First, I'd like to hear from

5253:

Though certainly permitted, and I would certainly argue that it should continue to be permitted, the use of this style is relatively uncommon here for most types of articles, and the template is needed to prevent people from incorrectly trying to change it. This is sipper and clearer than any

1301:

parameter, if at all present in the citation). Cite tweet also implements its own error checking (e.g. requiring the date, as all tweets are dated) – this could be expanded to require a real name, as suggested above. As also noted above, the documentation could be improved, e.g. to warn/inform of

423:

Tweets often become notable, because of reliable secondary sources drawing attention to them. Thus, Knowledge (XXG) should have a standard method of citing them, which this template provides. To repeat what others have said, I really don't see how having such a template encourages editors to cite

4434:

I'm not talking about using a template incorrectly here, I'm talking about using it maliciously. There are actually several alternatives, we could just perma-lock the wiki and only allow Jimbo's friends to edit it for example. The three options we have are, hope someone creates a bot to fix the

1787:

who have an opinion on this matter, please chime in! Also, just to be clear, Mr. Mabbett, not saying I only care about the opinion of those besides yourself. Just saying you've made your argument, I've made mine. Now I'd like to hear from others. :-) If there are others that support merging the

1458:

Seems to be pretty circumstantial though. I got an edit redaction and a 12 month topic ban currently under dispute over using a tweet on a BLP from an account already verified belong to the person when we already use tweets from the same account to support other information on the article.

1830:

I don't think that we should list all equipment, or all administrative divisions separately. The former should be placed in a table in the body of the article. The latter should be trimmed; a complete breakdown can be found in settlement articles. If we're gonna merge these, I'd prefer to

590:

on a Tweet by His Holiness, you'd have to cite secondary sources that discuss (and probably cite) the Tweet in order to establish that it's relevant and that it's discussed properly and neutrally: so I have yet to see a reason to cite His Tweets directly, via this template or otherwise.

3614:

The main reason to keep these non-navigational templates IMO would be that (a) we should be open to innovation in presentation, and (b) they solve the problem of keeping common information synchronized across articles. However, I eventually come down on the side of deletion because:

2874:). Because of the latter issues, I would argue that the table should be deleted from both articles even if the discussion of this TFD is to keep the template; the article talk-page is appropriate place for that discussion, although I'd wait for this discussion to be decided first. 5472:—the nomination was previously withdrawn by the nominator, so a relist should not have been necessary. However, I agree that the formatting of this should be changed, or the documentation made clear, that this template should be used in edit notices and not in the article itself. 3458:

of these templates has a number of mistakes, it should be used in lower resolution. Till November 2013, it used to be the main map of the alternative {{Indo-European topics}}. Last one, concerning the so called "spread of Vedic culture", is extreme and superfluous, it refers to

4988:

No one has demonstrated a policy-based reason against including this information within an edit notice. There is no policy of which I'm aware that would prevent me from hand-writing an edit notice without using this template to note what style dates are in use in an article.

3618:

This information really belongs in a central article, where it can be properly sourced, and presented in context, rather than as a sort of sidebar commonly found in magazine articles. Instead of duplicating information in that article, a simple link or a short summary should

3414:

on that page, not to mention the whole topic of Indo-Aryan migrations. However, the template seems to have broken some formatting code. After I checked the history and reloaded the page, the problem went away. I don't know if that is what you meant by "this is what happens."

759:

The presumption that this template will cause more tweets to be cited; and conversely that deleting it will stop (or reduce) tweets from being cited, is made without evidence. However, this template allows us to easily track such citations, and check them for appropriteness.

222:

I disagree with the point that the existence of cases where Twitter can be used as a source warrants a specific template for it. While I understand your point about being able to track Twitter usage better with the specific template, I don't believe it to be necessary.

649:

Since I already told you that the "social experiment" is an irrelevant commentary and you followed it with the TMZ remark, I'll tell you right now: I consider this a personal attack. Twitter has nothing to do with gossip and low social standard. See my replies above.

733:

for press releases. At least by encouraging people to use these specialized templates, we will clearly mark the citation as using a "(Tweet)" or a "(Press release)" so that readers and other editors can better judge the reliability and potential bias of the sources.

2316:

I don't see the need to state the population or the area the department is responsible for in the Infobox, but that is of course just my opinion. Let me know what your thoughts are. I want to be sure this template works for all departments regardless of country.

2870:

also has issue of due-weight, neologism (ACMM), and problems with mixing and matching of sources (creating, in effect, a novel periodization of Indian history on wikipedia, that you will not find in any source), and over-simplification of information (see also

4985:

editors who have added content to FAs because they haven't taken the time to match the dates they've added to the format already in use. If this template gives that that little reminder and saves others from clean-up duty, then it's served its purpose.

506:

Social media is rapidly expanding, and even prominent figures, like the President of the United States and Pope Francis, use it to issue statements. This template should definitely stay and possibly expand to include other platforms, such as Facebook.

3669:

The templates, especially in the default collapsed form, also raise accessibility issues, and are in my experience almost unreadable on mobile platforms. The problem is several orders of magnitude worse for an editor to edit the information in these

5769:, and this made more globally useful. I've yet to find an instance of the template using conference, mascot, colors, or schedule. The example in the documentation suggests that the latter is for values like "M-F except state holidays", which fails 1226:

That we have templates to permit us to automatically format simple strings of data is an accepted part of citations on Knowledge (XXG) (and that we have templates at all is accepted as good reuse), so that line of argument simply doesn't take you

3201:

I think the four maps do a good job of succinctly presenting the spread of IE languages. However, templates are navigation aids, not mechanisms for content delivery and perhaps there are more appropriate ways of conveying the same information.

4688:. Who gets to set these arbitrary time limits? There is no mandate for such a template, even the documentation admits that "there is no specific deadline for providing citations". And hiding text prior to removal is of no help to anyone. 5232:, changing an article's citation style is discouraged. If it's to be kept, it should be made an edit notice. Frankly, I don't think that it's needed; notices ought to be reserved for more grievous offences. Therefore, I'd also support 4656:. Every statement needs a source but it is better to retain that information until someone finds one (or have a fixed amount of time before hiding), rather than having a completely arbitrary time at which the statement will disappear. 144:

There are very few cases where something on Twitter should be used as a citation. We should not be encouraging people to use Twitter as a source by having a specific citation template for it. What it does is encourage additions like

1229:

These are true statements, but they don't take into account the practices at Knowledge (XXG). Even just below this discussion is one where we are removing templates for duplicating similar or the same functionality. In this regard,

4833:—it is not only administrators who can create or edit the edit notices. Those with the template editor right can as well. As for the rest of the nomination statement, I find it all false or not convincing as a reason for deletion. 5760:

I'm prepared to assume that Canadian school districts - not to mention those in the rest of the world - have coordinates, grades, a location, a region, a country, teachers, faculty, staff, and a staff/student ratio, at a minimum.

253:, then it's valid to standardize the output of citations to this source. The existence of the template does not encourage using Twitter any more than the existence of cite web encourages the use of web sources over paper ones. 3262:

you have no idea where else the same problematic content has been duplicated. A template is a better way to maintain consistency. Moreover, important templates get a lot of traffic too. See for example the revision history of

3236:

for example, would we debate the accuracy of the content of the template? In the less traveled template talk page or on some content page? If on a content page, then which one? If it gets debated and removed from, say,

5994: 4349:

The template lends itself to abuse. By setting a date in the past it could very well be deleted immediately. Unless a bot is somehow able to discern how long a tag has existed anything like this can always be abused.

302:

Clarifying the documentation won't prevent this template from being abused. There are bots that prevent additions of tweets to articles with regular links. This template bypasses the bots and enables further abuse.

149:, if a statement is notable enough to be included in an article it must be covered in a secondary source. In the rare instance where twitter would be required as a primary source, the standard Cite Web is sufficient. 5976: 4970:

Article styles aren't changed that frequently, so I can't imagine that it's that much of a burden that should a talk page discussion warrant a change to an edit notice that someone can't be pinged to make the edit.

1333:

in many cases, including articles covering an event because of someone's tweet. It's a cleaner wrapper for formatting the tweets than cite web which causes confusion as to whether to put work=Twitter or type=Tweet.

634:

You're totally missing the point: Tweets are primary. We cite secondary sources. At least, we should. I understand that's not the most important requirement for those thinking of WP as TMZ, bu it's still policy.

4621:

I too am against automatic removal/hiding of text. Also, the point of adding a Fact template is to draw attention to the fact that the statement needs a source; hiding the statement means losing that option.

554:

being released from prison. The fact that we actually have a citation template for twitter legitimizes its use as a reliable source, when in greater than 99.9% of all cases it is not a reliable source.

2247:

don't belong in this Infobox anyway. The infobox is about the department, not the community. These are all features of the community that the department is responsible for. This is why they are not in

3543:

I don't see any problem with templates with maps in them. Is there a policy against them? If it doesn't work on a page, remove it or reformat it to not be a sidebar, but I see no reason to delete it.

1267:

Citation templates, however, are by their very nature an exception: just about every citation template on Knowledge (XXG) is in fact a hardcoded instance or substantial duplicate of another template.

1094:), but doesn't quote it or link to it. It's useful for the reader to see the additional context of the original tweet, so citing that in addition to this secondary source seems entirely appropriate. — 5649: 6388: 5631: 2644: 1302:

when citing tweets is and isn't appropriate, with links to policy – this would be too much specific information for one type of source for cite web, which already has very lengthy documentation. -

6370: 2626: 3634:

policies, but we should be especially carful when dealing with an academic subject (as opposed to popular culture topics) so that the reader can easily verify the content of the maps shown.

4115: 1654: 4097: 1636: 1579: 4371: 2680: 1561: 42: 37: 5970: 5410:

Edit notices are nearly useless because most editors are not administrators or template editors, so it will be too cumbersome to get them added to a significant number of articles.

4882:, though not entirely for the nominator's reasons. I feel like this template is redundant to simply taking a look at the wikitext itself and seeing what conventions are used there. 2662: 3332: 2771: 1985: 586:, besides a website, and is always followed by an echelon from the press corps, why on earth (as it is in heaven) you'd have to resort to citing a Twitter feed. And even if you're 3657:; looking the information in the template one would not even realize that these eminent scholars have substantially differences views on when and how PIE started breaking-up (see 5685: 3060: 1616: 5667: 3042: 2988: 1598: 3744:, as it looks as though the structure and transclusion count has changed during this discussion. Please feel free to renominate it if you still would like to see it deleted. 6396:

Not really needed as a navigation aid, just a collection of links that are already in the article and links to proposed sub-systems which is just an aircraft design project.

2970: 1272: 360:

as a useless template for a typically useless source. Let's all try and pretend we're working on an encyclopedia, not a tool to track famous people as a social experiment.

3024: 1484:, it was an acceptable source. The template standardises references to Twitter and allows for many details to be included that would be left out by simply using Cite web. 5966: 5898: 3006: 4815:

edit notices, but the apparent intent of this template is to add it as an edit notice to every article, rather than articles that require exceptional care in editing.

4341: 1777:

Mine was a poorly framed argument. After looking over the two templates, I feel that they are distinct enough that it would not be beneficial to merge them. This is

4323: 5625: 4931: 959:

Seems like you should cite the article that he posted the next day, which is way more valuable to both readers and editors, since it will have much more detail.

606:- many have accounts as well. It's not "resorting", but rather expanding our sourcing options. This is me, "getting with the times". I suggest you do the same. 2312:

options allow you to specify the communities (be it counties, cities, towns, etc.) that the department is responsible for. Do you feel that is not sufficient?

471:

How can the documentation be improved? Since the template is very easy to include, anyone will use it regardless of whatever large red box tells them not to.

4406:

could detect and counteract any attempts to pre-date this template. Even if such abuse were to occur, vandals can be reverted and blocked as required (again,

4150: 6411:

The template would be more useful if those red links were actual articles. The template seems useless without those links to actual articles. Best Regards,

5201: 4802: 3788: 5087:. if there is some policy against this type of edit notice, I would like to see a broader discussion before deleting this. as a template, it seems fine. 5183: 4784: 3770: 2472: 2272: 5852:—details can be worked out on the appropriate talk page, but each template is accomplishing the same purpose with a lot of redundancy between the two. 4153:

has its own navbox, so I think the other Malayo-Polynesian subfamily deserves its own as well. If not possible, can I create two separate navboxes for

6223: 6081: 6006: 5934: 5696: 5621: 5573: 4091: 2454: 1200:

is superfluous because anything which that can do, could equally well be written in bare wikitext. The purpose of these templates, even the nested or

1375:

The outcome is not based on the number of votes. It is based on a review of the arguments made for the various outcomes discussed. --User:Ceyockey (

21: 5799: 3921:

for the detailed statistics. then, I could see, making the image array a separate template, but otherwise, there would be little duplication left.

3626:, as has been mentioned above; and the source cited in the image page often differs from the ones cited in the captions. We do allow some degree of 1555: 136: 1146:

for specific reasoning for a particular set of cases; can you think of one I missed which might make this template necessary (keeping in mind that

4900: 118: 693:—some of the comments relating to usage relate to the first-party/primary source nature of tweets, yet we allow official press releases. We have 703:

to handle those, and a tweet from an official account to make an announcement is like a press release with a 140-character limitation. Deleting

374:

See my reply below. This is not a social experiment, this is a discussion about a relatively new, yet already widely recognized media platform.

1362: 1132: 665: 651: 621: 607: 569: 508: 375: 929:"Portland AD Scott Leykam says Pilots have agreed to play in CIT. "We know we are going to play, it's just a matter if we play home or away."" 5661: 1592: 17: 6070: 4087: 4039: 2072:

has been changed dramatically since this was first listed. The template can now be used for any department in the world. That being said,

996:

as well as our general encyclopedic purpose in that we are a tertiary source (i.e. we should always attempt to target a secondary source).

3360:, and content should be collapsed only sparingly, if ever. If there's not enough space to float these images, they should be placed in a 6127: 6060: 5789: 5721: 2221: 2197: 2118: 2076: 1839: 1768: 1712: 1667: 1551: 1515: 776: 4127:. A navbox is far too cumbersome a tool to demonstrate the structure of a language family. The list in the "classification" section of 3938:, has two transclusions. Could be changed to just the image array being the template (and the population information removed) though. 3913:

and there is nothing keeping the two in sync. what would be better would be have a simple anchor link at the bottom of the infobox in

3570: 1849: 249:

can do what this does, that doesn't negate the benefits of this template. If the APA has issued guidance on how to cite social media,

6510: 4071:. It appears the format has changed during the discussion. Please feel free to renominate it if you still like to see it deleted. 2693: 6364: 2620: 2082:

has been customized to work specifically for fire & rescue departments in the UK. I see no reason why those cannot co-exist. --

1845:, which is the tidiest of the three. Officer titles will differ from country to country, so the labels should be customisable; cf. 1087: 6233: 6091: 6038: 5944: 5739: 5700: 5657: 4975: 3480: 3460: 2251: 2187: 2136: 2066: 1728: 1675: 1588: 2301: 1630: 1399:

we are allowed to cite Twitter and Facebook and Tumblr, otherwise why would we be told that requirements apply to these sites?

1347: 981:

For citing tweets which themselves reference an underlying opinion/news piece, we should cite that opinion/news piece directly.

6360: 6312: 2616: 2568: 1268: 2656: 1205: 988:, we should cite that reliable source directly. This has the additional value of providing the context necessary to satisfy 3036: 5064: 4665: 3947: 3564: 3463:

whose first line starts with the doubt and offers no support to the template. Templates are not for illustrating a point.

3245:

part of the content, what I disagree with is the method by which the view is being disseminated. It is not appropriate. --

2964: 2038: 1978: 1690: 1671: 1626: 6191: 5824: 5746:

people who know a thing or two about school districts if all of the parameters of these two templates are worth keeping.

5444: 5290: 5045:. While it can only be added by template editors or admins, having an edit notice is better than having a hard-to-notice 5017: 4593: 4199: 3867: 3586: 3515: 2841: 2502: 2006: 1907: 4410:). Any template is open to abuse, do we therefore delete the entire template namespace? Vandals would probably consider 4149:. I condensed some branches and merged them under a larger subfamily. Is this sufficient for the navbox to be retained? 3000: 2652: 166:, tweets are generally not acceptable as a reliable source. This template would encourage using Twitter as a citation. 6492: 6332: 6302: 5918: 5888: 5593: 5563: 5145: 5115: 4937: 4746: 4716: 4285: 4255: 4059: 4029: 3732: 3702: 2932: 2902: 2588: 2558: 2416: 2386: 1535: 1505: 80: 4778: 4317: 3305: 3032: 1881: 707: 697: 5318:. this sort of thing should be a comment in the wikitext, or in the edit notice, not a large banner in the article. 2960: 2912: 6261:

How merge would be important? If anything has to be kept, it would be discussed as there is one already and better.

6473: 6456: 6444: 6423: 6405: 6353: 6279: 6265: 6256: 6209: 6174: 6156: 6131: 6106: 6064: 6025: 5959: 5869: 5842: 5811: 5793: 5755: 5725: 5614: 5542: 5520: 5489: 5462: 5435: 5419: 5401: 5379: 5354: 5327: 5308: 5279: 5265: 5245: 5219: 5166: 5096: 5079: 5035: 5006: 4959: 4911: 4891: 4867: 4858:. We don't need to list stylistic choices inside edit notices. People get too stuck up on technicalities as it is. 4850: 4824: 4767: 4697: 4680: 4648: 4631: 4611: 4584: 4566: 4548: 4516: 4494: 4469: 4444: 4429: 4359: 4306: 4236: 4217: 4188: 4170: 4140: 4080: 4010: 3998: 3962: 3930: 3901: 3895:. It is being used on two pages which is enough reason to keep it. Maybe make the list of countries collapsible? ~ 3885: 3858: 3833: 3813: 3753: 3685: 3604: 3577: 3554: 3533: 3506: 3489: 3455: 3438: 3424: 3405: 3388: 3373: 3339: 3320: 3296: 3275: 3256: 3230: 3213: 3193: 3169: 3146: 3118: 3098: 3072: 2996: 2953: 2883: 2859: 2832: 2800: 2783: 2760: 2731: 2705: 2609: 2539: 2520: 2494: 2437: 2367: 2352: 2326: 2288: 2266: 2236: 2212: 2162: 2122: 2091: 2053: 2024: 1997: 1966: 1949: 1925: 1896: 1864: 1825: 1801: 1772: 1747: 1716: 1488: 1468: 1445: 1424: 1408: 1384: 1370: 1366: 1353: 1313: 1261: 1217: 1165: 1140: 1136: 1123: 1102: 1091: 1065: 968: 908: 874: 845: 797: 780: 751: 673: 669: 659: 655: 644: 629: 625: 615: 611: 600: 577: 573: 559: 516: 512: 494: 479: 466: 447: 433: 411: 383: 379: 369: 345: 311: 293: 270: 227: 217: 174: 153: 101: 6074: 664:

By the way, we still need primary sources, as the secondary sources serve to reinforce them, not to replace them.

5177: 4414: 4313: 4265: 4128: 3764: 3186: 2825: 1485: 5770: 2448: 817:

and add notation in the template documentation that Twitter can be designated as the source by either using the

112: 6123: 6056: 5785: 5717: 5173: 5125: 3760: 3712: 3646: 3331:

I am going through them, and slowly. Thanks for commenting on other template, another entry can be found at

2114: 1764: 1708: 785:

A valid reason Andy, however it seems like my removal of inappropriate Twitter sourced content is seen as a

772: 4504: 4395: 2444: 2396: 1396: 1082:

gives specific examples of where Twitter is a useful and acceptable source. As an example of where Twitter

891: 6348: 6204: 6013: 5954: 5837: 5705:

Many duplicate, though differently named, parameters. We don't need a separate template for each country.

5609: 5505: 5457: 5340: 5303: 5161: 5049: 5030: 4774: 4762: 4726: 4606: 4420:

to be an inefficient and pointless way to remove text; they would probably just delete the text directly.

4301: 4212: 4166: 4075: 3880: 3748: 3599: 3528: 3484: 3263: 2948: 2854: 2604: 2515: 2490: 2432: 2276: 2048: 2019: 1984:

is no longer in use and is being replaced by one of these two templates, I have nominated it for deletion

1920: 1213: 407: 320:(i.e, in templates) within the text of articles shows 5,857 matches – mostly individual tweets cited with 213: 96: 5732: 4456:

as to when there has ever been actual malicious use of the template - substantiated risk rather than the

4391: 1789: 6488: 6401: 6328: 6298: 5914: 5884: 5589: 5559: 5141: 5111: 4742: 4712: 4644: 4440: 4355: 4281: 4251: 4055: 4025: 3728: 3698: 3251: 3208: 3165: 3142: 3094: 2928: 2898: 2796: 2756: 2727: 2584: 2554: 2412: 2382: 1821: 1683: 1531: 1501: 1276: 1119: 869: 583: 528: 76: 4500: 457:

I agree that documentation for it (and perhaps the underlying design, too) should be improved, though.

6247: 5860: 5533: 5480: 5360:

Not sure about having an edit notice for what I'm about to suggest, but one could probably merge the

5055:

which doesn't even show up in sections. This could be particularly useful for high-traffic articles.

4997: 4841: 4488: 4154: 3476: 3178: 2817: 2363: 2348: 2322: 2262: 2208: 2153: 2087: 1993: 1962: 1892: 1797: 1743: 964: 932: 904: 742: 261: 5229: 3361: 1481: 1430: 1330: 1079: 5525:

That would be preferable in the long term, but for the short term, it should be kept in some form.

4627: 3829: 3681: 3420: 3384: 3271: 3226: 2879: 1341: 1234: 1174: 108: 60: 5270:

Keep the notice permanently in the article itself? That's not a sacrifice I'd be willing to make.

3658: 2308:. Definitely something that should be addressed. What would you propose? I feel that the multiple 2102:... can now be used for any department in the world"}}. We don't need country-specific templates. 1696:. We should merge the three nominated templates into one template suitable for international use. 1000: 989: 6166: 6142: 6138: 6114: 6098: 6047: 6017: 5803: 5776: 5747: 5708: 5512: 5323: 5271: 5237: 5092: 4874: 4859: 4232: 3926: 3918: 3914: 3910: 3854: 3846: 3809: 3801: 3502: 3430: 3397: 3365: 3312: 3292: 2779: 2701: 2535: 2295: 2280: 2228: 2105: 1873: 1856: 1784: 1755: 1699: 1378: 1297:

parameter to misuse – as it is merely the content provider, Twitter should only really be in the

886:) are not met. Further, even though tweets are not generally acceptable as a reliable source per 858: 839: 763: 727: 490: 462: 4124: 3411: 1738:

but it has been heavily customized with information that is needed for fire department pages. --

620:

In fact, citing a tweet from an official account is exactly like citing a televised appearance.

6321:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

6270:

I don't understand what you just asked. Can you use nouns/proper nouns rather than pronouns? --

5907:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

5582:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

5134:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

4735:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

4274:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

4048:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

3721:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

2921:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

2577:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

2405:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

1524:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

69:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below.

6487: