Template talk:Expedition
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Hobbitschuster in topic Consensus to use
Consensus to use
editPer our Template policy, there needs to be a consensus established to introduce a new template before it sees widespread use. This template has already been placed on several pages; where was it discussed? Powers (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Consensus discussion for a minor template on talk pages to save a little repetitive typing. You really want to be that controlling? If there is an objection then delete. Was just trying to highlight some projects a little more (guess I did that). --Traveler100 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- LtPowers is correctly pointing out what current Wikivoyage policy states. It sounds like you'd like to change that policy, so maybe you'd like to start a discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- That relates to article templates not other Namespaces, or am I misreading. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you're misreading. See Wikivoyage:Using MediaWiki templates#New MediaWiki template proposals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- That relates to article templates not other Namespaces, or am I misreading. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- LtPowers is correctly pointing out what current Wikivoyage policy states. It sounds like you'd like to change that policy, so maybe you'd like to start a discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Using MediaWiki templates. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I fully support keeping this template. I agree with Traveler100 that if our existing template policy prevents someone from implementing a simple, presumably non-controversial, informational template that is meant for making talk pages more useful then an update to policy is urgently needed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's unclear about the policy text. "Before a new MediaWiki template is put into general use it needs to be discussed and accepted as good or preferably best practice." That text has remained, unchanged, for eleven years, despite subsequent revisions to the surrounding text to accommodate new experiments. How is it that a change is now urgent after all this time? Powers (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- The concern is that putting administrative barriers in front of non-controversial changes discourages those sorts of improvements, and if existing policy is being interpreted to mean that anything in the template namespace needs pre-approval, even if it's a non-controversial cleanup, then something has gone wrong. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- And the policy states "Article" and mentions nothing about other namespaces such as talk or wikivoyage hep pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) I don't think it hurts to have a quick discussion, what one person judges as non-controversial can be controversial to other people (and my understanding of the policy was the same as Ikan and Powers). That said, the conversation seems to have veered away from discussing the template itself. -Shaundd (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- It may make sense to move this discussion to the template policy page, but re: I don't think it hurts to have a quick discussion, I can't speak for others, but I am far less likely to implement something like {{deletion archive}} or {{mapshape}} if I have to potentially fight a battle to get it pre-approved. I would much rather see obvious templates considered innocent unless someone raises an objection. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- If it's such an obvious improvement or asset, it shouldn't be a "battle" at all. The object of the policy was to prevent proliferation of useless or bad templates. If you feel that's no longer a worthy goal then you should propose a chance to our longstanding policy. I don't think it's a matter of interpretation at all. Powers (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- It may make sense to move this discussion to the template policy page, but re: I don't think it hurts to have a quick discussion, I can't speak for others, but I am far less likely to implement something like {{deletion archive}} or {{mapshape}} if I have to potentially fight a battle to get it pre-approved. I would much rather see obvious templates considered innocent unless someone raises an objection. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) I don't think it hurts to have a quick discussion, what one person judges as non-controversial can be controversial to other people (and my understanding of the policy was the same as Ikan and Powers). That said, the conversation seems to have veered away from discussing the template itself. -Shaundd (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- And the policy states "Article" and mentions nothing about other namespaces such as talk or wikivoyage hep pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- The concern is that putting administrative barriers in front of non-controversial changes discourages those sorts of improvements, and if existing policy is being interpreted to mean that anything in the template namespace needs pre-approval, even if it's a non-controversial cleanup, then something has gone wrong. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's unclear about the policy text. "Before a new MediaWiki template is put into general use it needs to be discussed and accepted as good or preferably best practice." That text has remained, unchanged, for eleven years, despite subsequent revisions to the surrounding text to accommodate new experiments. How is it that a change is now urgent after all this time? Powers (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - It seems like a pretty minor template and it helps highlight work that I think is very helpful in furthering this site's goals. -Shaundd (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Please weigh in on a similar debate over at Template talk:Exchange rate euros - the policy seems to not be all that well known. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)