Forum:CT:Maintenance template followup

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Maintenance template followup
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support. —spookywillowwtalk 00:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a followup to: Forum:CT:Fixing the Expand template

Proposing for most templates in Category:Maintenance templates to have a reasoning parameter added if they don't have such already, and furthermore to implement versions of Module:Expand on all of them to require a reason or talk page message reasoning to be present.

What this would look like is: 

{{Cleanup|reasons / what needs to be fixed here}}

instead of just: 

{{Cleanup}}

or, the module will sense if a talk page message has been left instead.

Essentially, we end up with a lot of things like {{Disputed}} having been added to a page over a decade ago, no reasoning. So... what in this 40,000 word article is disputed, exactly? The end result is that the template ends up rotting on the page because no one has any clue what to do with it. With merges; a reasoning being left for a merge is helpful to explain why exactly the pages might need to be merged, as these too get left on pages consistently without an obvious cause. For {{Cleanup}}, same thing—if that template was left on a fairly large article... why? What would need to be fixed to amend it.

It's worked fairly well with the Expand template to mandate a reason be present; and then if one isn't provided, they get purged every couple months or so/or, anyone who left one without a reason is @ed and given a chance to provide one. If they don't, then those too get removed.

Should note obviously some of the subcategories of the maintenance templates will not have reasoning parameters provided, such as the status article ones, which are inherently their own subpage-based process. And some such as {{SectionFlag}} (used solely by bot), {{Deprecated}}, and {{IncompleteList}} aren't suitable for reasoning parameters and so won't get them. Just that if applicable, they should get them.—spookywillowwtalk 00:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 00:07, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  2. Lewisr (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  3. Mor9347 ForPipadaLogo-UserImage (Talk) 00:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  4. ThePedantry (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  5. OOM 224 07:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  6. Yasen Nestorov (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  7. StarWarsFan327 (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  8. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 13:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  9. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 13:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  10. Ayrehead02 (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  11. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 16:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
  12. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 01:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
  13. CometSmudge (talk) 03:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
  14. Also, stop putting these at the top of the page instead of in the actual section that needs improving. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 16:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss