Template talk:Off topic

This template was listed on templates for deletion, but there was no consensus to delete. See the log. _→AzaToth 21:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turn into cleanup tag?

I think this should be turned into a cleanup tag. See Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup#Off-topic. --TreyHarris 07:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done. --TreyHarris 03:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see consensus for such a move, see: [1] Str1977 10:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not a big fan of such a change (and for the reason given by Str1977). —Locke Cole • t • c 11:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for any objection, both here and there, and waited a week before editing. That talk page was quite active in the interim, and nobody objected until now. One does not need a positive consensus before making edits; one is encouraged to be bold. Given that several things (Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, the category, the template) need to be edited in lockstep for this to happen, I went beyond that and asked for objections, but I don't believe I was under any onus to do so. There's now an orphaned cleanup category which will need to be listed for deletion if this revert is maintained.

I didn't notice until 21 January (see message above). You are not to blame for thinking there was a tacit consensus and in the end it was only your redoing of that template that brought it to my attention.

Can you please explain why this should not be a cleanup template? You made reference in the TfD dispute to its single current use, and how "nothing in the section was actually on topic", but I think this template can, and should, be used more widely—its current use shouldn't limit its future uses. If this is not the right template for an off-topic section, then there should be another one that is a cleanup tag, but I don't fathom why this one can't be it.

Because clean-up is not specific enough, or rather it is not that such a section needs cleaning-up - it needs to be redone entirely. Str1977 13:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand. Look at the other "cleanup specific issues" templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Several of them are about removing content or entirely reworking content (see {{cleanup-rewrite}} for instance). Having a section "redone entirely" is a cleanup task. --TreyHarris 19:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was a bit confused. I withdraw my objections. Feel free to revert it. Str1977 20:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --TreyHarris 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While there may have been no positive consensus for making this template a cleanup tag in the TfD dispute, there certainly was no consensus against it, either—several people mentioned the possibility, you said you were opposed to the idea. That does not a consensus make. --TreyHarris 09:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a late addition, but I just wanted to mention that I voted for this template to be deleted in its old version for the specific reason that it did not function as a cleanup tag. Now it does, and if a TfD vote ever came up again, I would vote to keep this. It's much improved in its current state. Kafziel 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reference

In what way is this a self-reference? Str1977 11:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er.. the link to Wikipedia:Stay on topic? —Locke Cole • t • c 11:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. But don't other templates, such as NPOV link to Wiki's NPOV policy? Str1977 11:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{NPOV}} is a redirect to {{POV}}, which also says the template is a self-reference. =) It's not a bad thing IMO (more or less I take it to mean that such templates should only be used temporarily, until whatever is being disputed has been resolved). —Locke Cole • t • c 11:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tags are always self-references. They are intended to be temporary. Articles with a cleanup tag are not encyclopedia-quality material.--Srleffler 04:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inline version?

Is there an inline version of this template?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'd like to create one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 03:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Irpen did so: {{Off-topic-inline}}.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Is this template redundant with the {{mergeto}} tag? Both serve the same purpose, right?
Bladeofgrass (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need for an in-line "off-topic" tag

Hey all,

I think WP could really use an in-line "off-topic" tag, to highlight specific sentences that might not be relevant to the topic of the article. Couple questions -

1) Does anyone know if there is already an inline tag of this nature?

2) Does anyone agree that one would be useful?

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalize?

Should the name of other article used as the parameter of this template be capitalized? The example used on the doc page, foobar, is not, but articles that use this template seem to use both styles. Hgrosser (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would my newly created image work for this template?

Proposed image for the template

That would probably give us an impression that an article's content is being strayed from its article's original subject. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording proposal

I think that this template's wording should be changed. Currently, it says:

This section may stray from the topic of the article. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page.

I personally think it would sound better if it was worded like this instead:

This section may contain material unrelated or insufficiently related to its topic. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page.

If the article parameter is supplied:

This section may contain material unrelated or insufficiently related to its topic, which is the topic of another article, Example. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page.

Please let me know your thoughts on this. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody has replied, I will now make the suggested change. If anyone objects, please let me know why here. Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]