Template talk:cite book

RFM discussion: March 2010–February 2016
,, all do really similar things, but slightly differently. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support merger/standardization. --Bequw → τ 21:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah sounds good, but difficult for relatively small benefit. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made redirect to  (which I beefed up to handle a few extra extra parameters), since neither of these were used really with quoted passages. Their formatting styles were different so please edit it to make it more like others if possible.
 * Right now we usually use quote-* templates between definitions and we use cite-* for unordered lists (usually Citation: pages). Ideally one set would direct to other just with a different predefined indent. --Bequw → τ 21:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Or we could eliminate the whole "indent" concept: it's not actually necessary. doesn't use it, for example. —Ruakh TALK 15:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirected to . Apparently that was all needed to be done. Hopefully nothing broke --Type56op9 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That redirection was undone, but it would still be good to merge these templates. I've therefore moved this back to the main RFM page, out of the archive of unresolved requests. - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why bother? Some folks are accustomed to one, others prefer another. One or more could be deprecated in documentation and categorization to discourage use. Merging to combine features runs the risk of complication. If someone has a new, improved version, let it prove its superiority by outcompeting the others. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Smuconlaw has sorted all these out. - -sche (discuss) 05:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)