Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 11

< September 10	September 12 >

September 11 edit

Template:List of Major Empires edit

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 delete. Izno (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Major Empires (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are four main reasons why I this template should be deleted:

It isn't in use anywhere
Inclusion criteria are extremely unclear (what makes an empire "major"?)
It appears to contain a significant amount of original research, I don't think many people would classify USA and China as empires, and there's also the afformentioned issue of defining what counts as "major"
It is redundant to Template:Empires 192.76.8.74 (talk)

Delete A navbox for this already exists. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:25, 12 September 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).

Template:Stable version edit

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 delete. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stable version (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a template intended to identify versions of an article that are stable and could be reverted to in case of edit wars or significant determination in quality over time. This does indeed sound like a good purpose, but I don't believe it works in practice. First of all the template would have to be somewhat up to date to be even somewhat useful. We currently have 50 transclusions, all except for 10 are older then 5 years and of those 10 only Talk:Lok Sabha, Talk:Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (Philippine game show) and Talk:iPad (4th generation) are less then 100 revisions old.

Even if we have a decently recent revision tagged here I don't think it could satisfactorily resolve the issues it sets out to resolve. If we have an edit war it's likely that either neither party would be satisfied with a revert if it concerns new information or it's just giving the early version (likely identified as stable by one of the parties in the dispute) precedence without doing anything to resolve the fundamental dispute. It's also likely the person would dispute the legitimacy of the stable version.

If the article quality has deteriorated reverting to an old revision is probably not the answer. That would throw out all the good work in the intervening revisions. --Trialpears (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's just no way besides reviewing edit histories for revision tagging simply for stability to be practical. --Izno (talk) 15:25, 11 September 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).