Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Help:How to use Cite.php references

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to maintain attribution history and for user-friendliness. Xoloz 17:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help:How to use Cite.php references

integrated into m:Help:Footnotes, multiple pages m:H:F + H:F + H:this + W:F + Template:Ph:F addressing the same subject are bad for maintenance. Anything relevant for Cite.php on Wikipedia is also relevant for other sister projects using m:H:F -- Omniplex 18:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, per prior talk at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#Proposed "How to use Cite.php" section for beginners. Also, as pointed out by the creator of the page, "Where my simplified writeup on how to use Cite.php was incorporated into Help:Footnotes it works very nicely. - But, where it was incorporated into m:help:footnotes it does not work because the Meta version of Cite.php still uses a vertical arrow instead of a caret ... and it uses 1.1, 1.2. 1.3, etc. instead of a, b, c, etc. for multiple use of the same references."^ref. Further, the alleged complexity mentioned by Omniplex, is the creation of this editor. In other words, he can only maintain his own complexity, provided that he can claim ownership on help pages, and thus prevent that they be replaced by something simpler. The "Ph:" and "Phh:" (and other) templates system is nowhere described as law, and can easily be dispensed of to replace it by something simpler in the case of the help pages on footnotes. --Francis Schonken 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simpler guide to a narrow matter is worth having for editors interested in that one thing. LotLE×talk 19:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the content has, in fact, been integrated into another page, then we must keep the page's contribution history in order to remain compliant with GFDL. The easiest way to do that is to keep it as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rossami. Keep as redirect page. --Zvika 17:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but redirect if it has been integrated.--MONGO 07:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change to redirect. If we keep both versions, sooner or later their contents will diverge and cause confusion. Therefore make the smaller into a redirect to the larger (and retain its history per Rossami). —CWC(talk) 15:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it permissible for the original author of Help:How to use Cite.php references to voice an opinion? If so, I just want to say that it doesn't matter to me whether or not it is deleted or re-directed as long as it is included in Help:Footnotes and m:help:footnotes. In other words, in my opinion, what does matter is to make the content available to beginners like myself who need a simpler explanation and a clearer examples of how to use Cite.php references. I would also like to repeat that Help:Footnotes and m:help:footnotes do not use the same version of Cite.php ... the version in used in Help:Footnotes was changed within the past few weeks so that the vertical arrow was replaced by a caret and, for multiple uses of the same references, Help:Footnotes uses superscript a, b, c, etc. rather than the 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. used in m:help:footnotes. This is an inconsistency that needs resolution. - mbeychok 16:20, 20 May 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.