Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 September 14

 &lt; September 13 September 15 &gt;

Template:IPMag

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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. Izno (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Single-use citation template. Subst and delete. SWinxy (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * IPMag
 * Might as well delete it now. Used to be used more, but almost all the uses of it have been subst'd out over time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Subst per nomination. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Welcome-unconstructive

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 no consensus. There were concerns with the substance of the message, which can be sorted outwith the TFD process, but if nothing comes of that, there is NPASR. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC) We shouldn't be welcoming vandals in the first place. #prodraxis connect 14:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome-unconstructive
 * Keep. This template doesn't appear to be intended to welcome vandals, but rather to welcome editors who appear to be editing in good faith but whose edits (some of them, at least), are disruptive. Someone who means well but is nevertheless making mistakes, out of ignorance rather than malice. Almost as though they didn't read the hundreds of pages of policies and guidelines before trying to improve articles. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. If we should greet vandals, this is a good way to do it. If not, this isn't the best forum to discuss changing our practices.  Sadly, some new editors are beyond redemption, but there are many cases where guidance is worth a try.  Certes (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. If a new editor is making (assumed) good faith non-constructive edits, they should be given a description of what is wrong with their edits and a link to relevant guidance, not just "Hi welcome! you're doing it wrong but I don't have the time to explain why". Folly Mox (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We can always add text to explain the problem. It would be nice if Twinkle had a box for that, as it does with some other templates.  (Twinkle uses the welcomevandal alias.) Certes (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion, which I'll give rest after this comment, is that it would be nice if we had level-0 user warning templates for all the different categories that incorporated more of the "welcome" prose and links, such that they felt more like a genuine attempt to welcome a possible new contributor starting out on the wrong foot with information relatively specific to their situation, and less like "hey fyi, you're doing [whatever] wrong, and your edits have been undone."The second, and contradictory, bit of my feelings on this is that in cases where the first contact with a good faith new contributor is someone telling them what errors they're making, a template really shouldn't be how we approach it. I've done this a lot of times, welcoming people with a custom message that lets them know how they've been helping, what they've been getting wrong, and dropping links to guidance pages and to the Teahouse for any follow up questions. It always takes ten minutes or so to compose, but I do really think the human touch is important. I only really use warning templates if I assume I'll be heading to AIV after placing the full series of four, or if I've already left the custom message and am desperately trying to get someone to read it while I continually revert their article-breaking edits. I get that this is not the typical procedure, and I have frequently seen a welcome template backy-back with a level 0 or level 1 user warning template, with the same timestamp and signature.I understand the attraction of performing a single click to effect a nearly zero effort assumption of good faith at a new contributor, but I think this template in particular promotes the idea that sending this sort of mixed message is somehow helpful. Bad faith contributors will pay it no attention, and good faith contributors – absent a follow up comment – will be left with no specifics about what they've done wrong and what they should have done instead, just links to WP:NOT, WP:5P, and a handful of other pages they're not going to want to search through to try to understand what the problem is.This template feels kinda like leaving a bare "oppose" at an RfA. Ok, why do you oppose? and why didn't you say so up front? We don't have a template for that (a hash symbol, bolded "Oppose", and autosign), but if we did I would want to get rid of that too.I could see myself supporting the existence of this template if it had a reason parameter, and the template generated an error if reason were left blank. Folly Mox (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I try to leave a personal message immediately after the template, politely explaining whatever arcane rule has been transgressed, e.g. WP:OVERLINK or WP:NOTBROKEN. I agree that this would be made much easier by a reason parameter.  I think it's handy to have the usual welcome stuff without the confusion of implying that the contribution(s) I just reverted were helpful, but I suppose we can make do with using a standard welcome and hope the new editor understands. Certes (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Certes, I hope I haven't implied I thought anything negative (or indeed at all) about your personal methodology for contacting new contributors about their errors. Thank you for taking the time to explain things to them. I do agree that leaving a more standard welcome template in the wake of reversions can be seen as an even less informative mixed message. Folly Mox (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I found your comment very useful and didn't read anything negative into it. One suggestion I made at Talk:Twinkle was to allow us to modify the standard texts, rather than just adding to them.  That would let us tailor generic phrases like "one or more of your edits may have been reverted" to be more personal and relevant, both helping the new editor and making the welcomer sound less bot-like. Certes (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To add onto this point, 9 times out of 10 I do think that leaving personal messages for new editors is often the way to go if the new editor is unsure what they're doing, as it does come across as "more personable" and can give key points of guidance to relevant policy if the situation requires it. That all being said, I don't think that should necessarily be the only way of going about responses to reversions, and I often make use of both templates, personal messages, and usually a combination of both as well whenever I'm patrolling. The reason these types of templates get used is because often a lot of editing mistakes may fall into the same category(s), and at times when vandalism is high, its usually not as productive to have potentially-lengthy user-talk-page discussions for, say, adding original research, when WP:OR covers much of everything I would have in mind to add. I think there's absolutely nuance towards how to respond to good-faith editors who have made potentially unconstructive edits, yet still want to contribute positively to the project. Having multiple avenues to go about these unique circumstances, with different decisions to be made depending on the scenario (such as whether to use a template or a personal message), seems to be the option that gives patrollers the most flexibility. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This discussion clearly won't come to a consensus to delete, but I think Folly Mox has a point here - that this template is boilerplate than fails to convey a useful message. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my opinion, the last thing we'd want to do in the case of happening across an unconstructive edit, as the template implies is the purpose, is to immediately jump to warnings and perceived hostility, even for perceived vandals. If the sole purpose of a potential editor is to immediately cause persistent disruption, then no amount of warnings in any tone, nice OR strict, are going to stop that editor from disrupting different articles until they are inevitably blocked. On the contrary, if non-Wikipedia-familiar-editors walk into an article and make a joke in the lead paragraph, either because they find it funny, or they think it will be reverted anyway so it "doesn't matter", or for a plethora of reasons that we couldn't possibly infer after one particular edit, I think a welcome message is still the most reliable way to get the message across. While IP ranges who become regular vandals may be "predictable", who knows for sure? It's often impossible to determine with so few examples in early cases, and maybe the editor will change their ways in the future. Rather than a derivative of "DON'T TOUCH THAT" or an immediate level 4 warning which is possibly scary for users who are otherwise unaware of what they might be doing, having an option to say "Hey, welcome to Wikipedia, please don't touch that as your edit is perceived as unconstructive", depending on the circumstances, I feel could have the potential for a higher turnover of disruptive-to-positive editors in the future. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cross Country Network

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. 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 keep now in use. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Orphaned after Articles for deletion/CrossCountry network redirected its parent article, and the sense of that discussion was to not incorporate the template into CrossCountry. Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Izno (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cross Country Network
 * Keep and add to CrossCountry, where it will provide useful context for the table of services. Certes (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Certes that's probably best handled through the editorial process on the article, yes? No one's taken up that cause. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added the template to the article, so we can see if anyone there objects. Certes (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and add to article per Mackensen. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @WikiCleanerMan I don't think that can be per me; I'm not in favor of that course of action. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I'm not aware of the norm for route map templates. Do they get added to each station page? How many transclusions do they normally have? SWinxy (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They're usually added to the article for the line, franchise or company, but rarely to individual station articles. Certes (talk) 15:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.