The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Resolution (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ancient template which has seen nearly-0 use. I thought actually there might be a different template at this spot ({{resolved}}), which might be a better target. Izno (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was the creator, and it may have been used back in 2006 but its fairly useless now. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G7 and nom --DannyS712 (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  DannyS712, G7 not apply here, see this edit Hhkohh (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hhkohh: I don't know if that is "substantive", but if its not eligible then just delete --DannyS712 (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Think it's safe to say it doesn't apply, or I would have just deleted it :D I have no idea if anyone found this useful, but there is no need to rush the deletion - I have no objection though. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to {{resolved}}. I agree that there's no need to keep the current template, but deleting and recreating would be a bit pointless. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Orphan and delete. --Bsherr (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Move patent citations out of {{Citation}} and into {{Cite patent}}, deprecate the dedicated code in {{Citation}} for patents. AKA the course of action proposed by Trappist the monk has received consensus. Did not put this into the holding cell as I can't see a section for such complex fixes Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Citation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Citation/authors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Citation/patent (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Cite patent/core (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not a deletion discussion. Rationale given below. Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For many years {{citation}} has supported patent citations. It does this by looking for any of the various inventor-name parameters or for |country-code= or for {{{3|}}}. When any of these are present and have an assigned value, {{citation}} calls {{citation/patent}} to render the citation. {{citation}} (a cs2 template) itself plays no part in the rendering of patent citations (which are neither cs1 nor cs2 citation templates).

In 2013 with the advent of TemplateData it was noted that this mechanism could prove to be problematic. In June 2018, Editor Mvolz (WMF) added patent citation parameters to Template:Citation#TemplateData. That action allowed editors to use ve to add individual patent parameters to an otherwise proper {{citation}} template like this one:

{{Citation |title=Inhibition of amine oxide |url=https://patents.google.com/patent/CN102741310B/en |issue-date=2010-12-30 |access-date=2019-04-14}}

Inhibition of amine oxide, retrieved 2019-04-14 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |issue-date= ignored (help)

which produces the error message because |issue-date= is not a valid {{citation}} parameter. A few days ago I removed the patent parameters from TemplateData but that was an incomplete fix.

Patent citations are rendered by calls to three subtemplates: {{citation/patent}}, {{citation/authors}}, and {{citation/make link}}. These are all also called by {{cite patent}}. I had originally thought that the {{citation}} bypass version was intended to provide cs2-style vs cs1-style but that does not appear to be the case because patent citations rendered through the {{citation}} bypass have the same style as those rendered by {{cite patent}} (there are parameters that will allow editors to make that distinction).

The proposal:

1. replace {{citation}} patent templates in article space with {{cite patent}} (~60 instances)
2. remove patent support from {{citation}}
   1. delete currently unused {{cite patent/core}} [list of Template-space transclusions]
   2. move {{citation/patent}} to new {{cite patent/core}} [list of Template-space transclusions]
   3. move {{citation/authors}} → {{cite patent/authors}} [list of Template-space transclusions]
   4. remove the patent bypass from {{citation}} (and its attendant documentation at Template:Citation/doc#Citing_patents)

The other template that {{cite patent}} uses, {{citation/make_link}} shall remain where it is because it is used by more than just {{cite patent}} [list of Template-space transclusions]

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Agreed. Those are too different. However, no objection on redirecting {{cite patent/authors}} to {{citation/authors}} if it'll do the same things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've switched VE to use {{Cite patent}} instead of {{Citation}} for patents, diff Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I think that it is outdated and unintuitive to support patents using dedicated code in {citation}, and that we should deprecate and discontinue that usage in favor of {cite patent}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Know No Better track listing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article, plus only 3 of 6 songs have articles showing lack of need to provide full track list as it simply replicates info from Know No Better without improving navigational benefit over that article as well as Template:Major Lazer. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons given above. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).