Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 28

< July 27	July 29 >

July 28

Template:More citations needed section

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. 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 don't merge per WP:BROKE and WP:SNOW . — Wug·a·po·des 20:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:More citations needed section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:More citations needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:More citations needed section with Template:More citations needed.
Is the dedicated "section" template necessary? {{More citations needed}} has a parameter to switch the text from "article" to "section", and {{More citations needed section}} itself appears to be using that coding to render itself. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see the need to have a separate coded template, when the {{More citations needed section}} can be a redirect to the other name and work just fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm noting a lot of other notice templates also have a "parent" template and a "section" template, so I guess the query applies to those as well should this move forward in any meaningful way. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: Indeed, many: [1] -- which suggests this practice is well established. fgnievinski (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - For a less experienced editor two separate templates for two different situations is far more understandable than adding parameters to a template to modify its function. --John B123 (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I understand it, this shouldn’t be an issue because {{More citations needed section}} would still exist as a redirect to the merged template, meaning its continued usage would still magically, transparently work for those less experienced editors. — Spike Toronto 08:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly. The proposal isn't to do away with the template name, simply make it a redirect into {{More citations needed}}, not its own code which in and of itself is actually using {{More citations needed}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if adding a check to see if the template is placed in the lead or in a section is something that is possible, simple and cheap. If so, this can be automated without needing any user input. Gonnym (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Several related templates have a parameter to specify article versus section, for example {{Cleanup rewrite}}, {{Cleanup lang}}, {{Close paraphrasing}}, {{Advert}}, {{Tone}}, {{Confusing}}, {{Disputed}}, {{Unreliable sources}}, and most importantly, {{More citations needed}} itself. It's also worth noting that the Twinkle tagging feature does not offer {{More citations needed section}} as an option. This is an open-and-shut case: simply delete {{More citations needed section}}. Thrakkx (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could be missing something, but I don't think Twinkle supports any kind of section tagging? Remagoxer ^(talk) 21:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the templates in this list, like More citations needed, have a {{X section}} version with varying levels of use. To be honest, I think more of these wrappers should be made. — Goszei (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All pertinent information in your argument is already contained within the request itself, voiding your argument entirely. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per John B123. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 21:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per John B123 --Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 22:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose keep the section templates as they are useful to limit scope of their message. Parameters are much harder to remember, than a logical pattern of a template name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. 2001:8003:9008:1301:E468:8DE:81D4:6FF6 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if it ain't broke, don't mess with it. Skyerise (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - {{More citations needed section}} is already 'coded' to use {{More citations needed|1=Section}}, so there's next to no extra code to maintain. {{More citations needed section}} is in use more than 15k times so is clearly useful to many editors. It isn't worth forcing them to change their behaviour for little benefit. -M.nelson (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per John B123.🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Template:More citations needed: You can incorporate section functionality by adding a "section" parameter, like many other templates do. Aasim (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose basically for the reasons M.nelson and John B123 state. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 02:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a pointless change that will break some completely harmless habits. – Xingyzt (talk | contribs) 02:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per John B123 and M.nelson. I really do not see the rationale here personally, and the template is in very wide usage. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - There is no inherent reason why this template should be replaced (there does not seem to be an outstanding issue with the current template); however, it does seem a little counter-intuitive to have two templates on virtually the same problem, where the only difference is in the location of the article. For now, though, I still do not believe there is a good enough excuse to remove the template entirely, which would most likely cause more inconveniences than it solves. Liamyangll (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:BROKEN: "If there is no evidence of a real problem, and fixing the "problem" would not effectively improve Wikipedia, then don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it.". I suggest a WP:SNOW closure so the merge template can disappear on the thousands of tagged pages these temples are on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would prefer to encourage use of the "section" parameter with the Template:More citations needed and this would present editors with one flexible means of flagging up this problem in articles. BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I would support this, since param is always better as BobKilcoyne points out. However, the section-only template has been in use for so long, and is extensively used, so redirecting the section template to its parent and replacing all usages of would be too expensive. Gonnym's idea looks like a good compromise though, and if that's possible, I will support this proposal. pandakekok9 (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you want to make life easier for template writers, then "This is an open-and-shut case: simply delete". If you want to make life easier for editors who need to use a template, and may not be expert at the ins and outs of param usage and template variants, at the expense of making the templates less algorithmically elegant, or making life a bit harder for template writers, then vote keep! As a template writer, I say we should *always* be making life easier and better for: 1) readers of Wikipedia; 2) editors and template users; and 3) template writers (in that order). Therefore, I !vote oppose. Mathglot (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is a solution looking for a problem. Think back to the days of
- PIP outfilename=inputfile name, vs.
- COPY infilespec outfilespec.
  - IBM's IEBCOPY permitted COPY /IN=xxxxx /OUT=zzzzz so the order was no longer important.
  - Can we apply "who codes least codes best" and leave the choice to those who are building the articles? Pi314m (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Who codes least codes best" falls apart as an overextension of the analogy when you realize that those who edit Wikipedia articles don't fit that adage's necessary definition of "coder". Oppose is correct exactly because of that. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Unless proven otherwise, it's a bad idea to break large parts of Wikipedia just to satisfy a (perfectly understandable!) urge to achieve fastidiousness in templates. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As per nom. — Spike Toronto 08:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SpikeToronto's reply to John B123 about making the section template redirect to the section-parameter-using version of the main mbox. That said, this is looking pretty SNOWy from here… — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. if it ain't broke just don't fix it. Grandia01 (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per John B123 and M.nelson. The section functionality is already there, and the template is in very wide usage ... --Whiteguru (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per John B123 and M.nelson. –Golam Mukit ☆ (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also per John B123 and M.nelson. - Poydoo can talk and edit 13:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As said above. Danloud ^(talk) 13:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mathglot said it brilliantly. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as tagging only the section that needs more citations may encourage editors to fix it when they might not want to spend time taking on the entire article. The great cathedrals were built stone by stone.Blue Riband► 15:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as these templates are used on a ton of pages and would probably break a lot of Wikipedia. Urbanracer34 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There is a difference between the two templates and there use. When an article itself needs more citations across multiple sections, the template for that is most suitable. But if only a single or two sections need more citations, but the majority of the other sections don't, a separate template for those sections is most appropriate, since we are saying "The article has a good amount of reliable sources for most of the information, but a section or two need a few more to be adequate, so we need to highlight these sections for improvement."GUtt01 (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. We don't need duplicate templates, thanks. –Mario Mario 456 15:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; there's nothing wrong with it being a wrapper. I suggest this be WP:SNOW closed before too much longer. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per John B123 and M.nelson. Merging doesn't actually improve the status quo. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Making life easier for editors helps improve the encyclopedia. Too many templates is only a problem if it results in confusion or fragmentation, neither of which is in evidence here. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose'. Sections are not entire articles. If an article is very well referenced and cites reliable sources but one section fails to reach the professionalism of the article itself is what Template:More citations needed section is for. MatEditzWiki — ^Talk!/_Contribs! 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Template:More citations needed section already uses Template:More citations needed at its core so I don't see the need to get rid of the former. Nathanielcwm (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2021 (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 template's talk page or in a deletion review).