Help talk:Maintenance template removal

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2018

There is no such place as Harriton Pennsylvania, as mentioned in the Harriton High School entry. Harriton HS is in Rosemont PA. 108.185.174.225 (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Help:Maintenance template removal. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

ReFill tool

the ReFill tool links should be https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/, instead of pointing refill to work on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.123.82 (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually only when the templates are shown in this page they should act like that. If not possible, should leave as is now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.123.82 (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Template removal after conclusion of an RFC

Criteria for removing the template include:

2. Upon determining that the issue has been resolved.
4. When there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue.

This text is potentially unclear when an RFC concludes as no consensus to change the existing text. On one hand there is no consensus that any problem exists, and it has been resolved that we address the issue by retaining the current text. On the other hand those who dislike the result of no consensus are still unhappy with the article text. There can be disagreement over adding/removing a maintenance template after an RFC concludes.

When RFC concludes, there is no maintenance work to be done. Maintenance templates should be removed if there's nothing to do. The template also contains a "call to action" for people to go to the talk page, however it is disruptive to call people in to continue arguing immediately after an RFC has concluded. Closers sometimes write "no consensus for the proposal" as a less confrontational equivalent of "consensus against the proposal". No-consensus for a requested change is very often the permanent endpoint of many disputes. We don't want to leave leave the template in place indefinitely.

It seems the sole purpose of leaving the template in place after an RFC concludes, by those who dislike the RFC result, is to direct the tag towards readers. The only purpose is as a badge of shame.

I suggest we more explicitly address this case. I suggest criteria #4 be revised as:

When an RFC has concluded or there is consensus on the talk page (or elsewhere) as to how to address the flagged issue.

Alsee (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I propose to not change the text per WP:KISS. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Alsee I would like you clarify. A RFC can conclude in many ways. It would be inappropriate for this instruction page to (effectively) say "no matter how an RFC concludes, remove tags". This stuff is much better handled by... the people involved in the RFC. Or am I misunderstanding you? (I suspect you have a specific article in mind - perhaps you need to bring your grievance up there instead? What I mean by this is that we don't want to make site-wide decisions based on individual cases.) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the language on tag removal was ambiguous because there was edit warring to add/remove the NPOV tag at White_Helmets_(Syrian_Civil_War), after this RFC closure of no consensus for anything wrong with current text. The story in a nutshell: Countless Reliable Sources across the globe describe the White Helmets as a humanitarian rescue organisation. However Russia Times, along with a bunch of blogs and conspiracy theory sites, spin wild and contradictory stories that White Helmets are terrorists. Russia Times is a government controlled "news" organisation. Our article on it says RT has been frequently described as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy. RT has also been accused of spreading disinformation by news reporters, including some former RT reporters. At ReliableSourceNoticeboard, Russia Times has repeatedly been said to be not Reliable. According to countless Reliable Sources across the globe, Russia Times has been running a disinformation campaign to paint the White Helmets as terrorists. We keep getting bombarded with conspiracy-theory types arguing that all Reliable Sources are part of a "Western Media conspiracy" to suppress WP:The Truth. The only purpose for the NPOV tag is because conspiracy theorists want to direct it at readers, despite the fact that there are zero reliable sources disputing the current article text.

I made exactly one edit removing the tag, and so far no one has disputed it. But the ambiguous language here is bad. Even if the warring has ended at this article, we don't want warring on some other article when one side is unhappy with the result of an RFC. Alsee (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, won't touch a flamingly sensitive issue like that with a ten foot pole. Oppose any changes originating from hotspot subjects like that. CapnZapp (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concern. However I'd like to note that the tag was added three times by a single editor,[1][2][3] and removed by three different editors.[4][5][6] I'd also note that my rationale seems to have been successful in bringing the dispute to an end. There has been no conflict over the tag in the week since I posted this edit summary: Removing maintence template. An RFC on the issue just concluded. We have a result: The current text is to be kept. There is no maintenance work to do here, directing people to the talk page to continue debate immediately after an RFC has closed is disruptive, and tags are not permitted to be directed at readers to shame the article just because someone dislikes the result of the RFC. Alsee (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Redundancy in "When to remove"?

What's the difference between the first two points of §When to remove?

 1. When the issue has been adequately addressed;
 2. Upon determining that the issue has been resolved (perhaps by someone else);

It looks like the original version was:

 1. When they have addressed the issue the template has raised
 2. When they notice that the issue has been resolved (perhaps by someone else)

But (1) has lost the 'by them' meaning. Could (2) be dropped, and perhaps (1) reworded to cover the 'you or someone else' bit?

 1. When they or someone else has adequately addressed the issue

› Mortee _talk 17:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we can preserve SilkTork's original distinction = having one bullet point for having fixed it yourself and another for noticing the issues had been fixed (perhaps by others). A more immediate concern is that the article generally addresses the reader directly ("you"), but not here. Suggestion:

Maintenance templates are not meant to be in articles permanently. Assuming no conflict of interest you may remove a maintenance template in any of the following circumstances:

1. When you believe you have fixed the issue;
2. If you determine that the issue has been resolved (perhaps by someone else);

...

Regarding the first point, we want to encourage editors to boldly fix things. Removing the template should be a signal that says "I fixed this" (or, longer, "I believe in good faith I fixed it").

CapnZapp (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)