- Template:OSTI (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This template is part of a family of templates for citation identifiers, like {{hdl}} and {{bibcode}}. Not having it is detrimental to citation style flexibility. Additionally, one of the users who supported deletion is fine with undeletion. As for the other user's comment, this is not at all like {{cite doi}}. {{cite doi}} put the citation information in subpages to be transcluded on the article, which made it awful to maintain and edit. This is an external link template in the same line as {{doi}}. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore This seems like a Tempest in a teapot. If somebody wants to use it, I can't see any valid reason to prevent them from doing so. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- no objection from me if you are going to use it [1]. Frietjes (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The template was unused at the time of its nomination. Where is the evidence of likely use in the future? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a consensus that it failed WP:TFD#REASONS point 3 at the time, and was deleted in accordance with the consensus, so of course DRV will endorse Plasticspork's decision. But TFD#REASONS point 3 is easily overcome; all you've got to do is re-create the template and actually use it. At that point, the only way to delete it would be to renominate at TfD citing different grounds. So, it seems to me that anything deleted solely under TFD#REASONS point 3 can and should be automatically restored if the requesting editor is in good standing (as in this case) and can explain where they're going to use it. I think that in that event we should be looking at an automatic and speedy restore, as we do with PRODs. (We should document that somewhere, I think.) But if the requesting editor doesn't have a specific use in mind, then how is it a good use of volunteer time to debate it?—S Marshall T/C
- Restore and the fact that transclusions were removed (for example diff) and existed but were not removed (here) shows that the claim that it was unused was incorrect. And evidence of "likely use in the future" is that when a bot comes to restore the damage previously done (does this happen – I hope it does) this template will again become transcluded. Thincat (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore per Thincat. This seems like a decision that should have had far more eyes. Jclemens (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy relist
Restore for now per evidence given, though I have yet to see use in article space, which may have been key words left out of the nomination (I am not opposed to renomination if a use isn't found, or making another template as suggested in the TfD) —PC-XT+ 06:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Changed to speedy relist per SmokeyJoe —PC-XT+ 00:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Evidence"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Very little, really, which is why I added the parenthetical statement. As for multiple transclusions being removed by a bot, I can only find one in that bot's edit history at the time the template was being deleted, and it has already been linked, above. I didn't consider the circular links had weight, but did find at least two actual transclusions. I'm not really sure how useful this template potentially is, (and can't actually see what it is, for that matter,) but won't oppose a second look. —PC-XT+ 05:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite often, the template's use in mainspace is short-lived, since people will routinely convert plaintext citations from "J. Smith (2006) "Title" {{OSTI|01234}}" to "{{cite document |author=J. Smith |year=2006 |title=Title |osti=01234}}. It's not quite a template that's often subst'ed, but it's more or less the equivalent situation. But the template's usefulness in metaspace is quite clear and overturning that deletion on those grounds alone is already sufficient. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Further evidence, if true (diffs, please), that the template is not needed. The only uses in metaspace seem to be documenting the the existence of the template, so your argument is circular. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The template's main use in metaspace is to create links to OSTI ressources (e.g. User:Headbomb/sandbox4). No instance is self-referential (save for the one that was on the doc, which is now deleted). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, diffs please. The use in your sandbox is "
* {{para|osti-access|yes}} – to flag a free {{para|osti}} like {{OSTI|4435330}} [http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4435330] which is quite clearly documenting the then existence of the template, and thus entirely self-referential. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not, it is not. It is clearly documenting CS1/CS2 templates, not itself. This should be fairly obvious since you don't see {{OSTI|foobar}}, but rather a formatted link to OSTI which is exactly the purpose of this template, as I've explained it to you several times now: To create links to OSTI documents. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy relist for more discussion, no criticism of the closer. Someone clearly has something more to say, and the discussion was small and cursory. Actually, some criticism of the closer is due for failing to respond on their talk page. The closer has not been active for a week, userpage is tagged "semi-active", andhis talk page was being over-zealously archived. Real life issues can arise suddenly. As a reasonable closer should have re-opened the discussion on request, and as the closer is absent, I recommend speedy relisting. DRV is not the place to argue details being argued above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore, just because it's useful to have a template for each identifier supported by CS1. OSTI is currently the only one without a template. It was not very convenient during the discussion of changes involving
|osti= If the template is only used in a dozen pages, is it really a problem? − Pintoch (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
