Help talk:Maintenance template removal

This talk page is for comments or discussion on how to improve the Help:Maintenance template removal page. Please note there is yes policy or guideline page associated with this subject - please ask where to raise issues related to the policy or guideline consensus reflected herein. If you would like to ask further questions about the subject, please use the Help Desk. To ask a question not related to Help:Maintenance template removal, click here for details of where to ask them.

Wikipedia Help NA‑class High‑importance

	This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp
NA	This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
High	This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

User:Johnbot/config

What about adding a “maintenance template message”?

Does someone know when and how to add a “maintenance template message” to an article? KevinML (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

The information on this page is incorrect and misleading. Wikipedia will not accept changes.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

74.92.25.225 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It isn't clear what change you are requesting. PohranicniStraze (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources / Links

Hi, I noticed that "Find sources: "Maintenance template removal" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" contains mainly links using Google as search engine. I'm just curious. Is this so? Who or which process defines it, decides it? I wonder if the links could point to a general "search register" allowing people to decide which search engine to use or continue searching with. I also understand that Google seems to be donating to Wikipedia, so there might be a potential COI. Once again, just curious. KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 17387349L8764. While this is a perfectly valid subject for discussion, this is not really the right page for it. The display of maintenance templates blend a variety of information and links in proximity to serve different purposes. The parenthetical link to this project page – addressing the when, how and why of template removal – bears little relationship with the separate separate set of links addressing finding sources.

Anyway, the reason for the links to Google has nothing to do with any financial support of the Wikimedia Foundation. Effectively, everything here is added by volunteers from all over the world and not by Wikimedia employees. I personally have misgivings about the heavy use of Google too. For me of particular concern is my feelings about Google's incredibly invasive tracking and privacy violating practices. But the rub on this issue seems to be the pragmatics of the issue.

We provide these links because sourcing, and in particular, the right types of sources, with the right depth of treatment, is the be-all, end-all of article writing – it is what all our information and subject inclusion policies and guidelines converge on. Since that is the case, it is very important that users be directed to the best, easiest ... (add about five others superlative "est" words to that list) facilities for finding sources, and in databases that tend to concentrate reliable sources. Like it or not, Google seems to be the premiere search engine, and with no other providing the same niche search facilities (for books, scholarly material, newspapers, etc.), of equivalent quality and breadth.

At least, that's what I would suggest is the correct focus on this topic: if the number one concern—so much more important than anything like being "democratic" with our links—is providing the best links to serve our users in their paramount task of proper sourcing in article writing, are there any alternatives that do as a good a job? I don't know of any. Do you?

Now that I think about it, though, it occurs to me that I would actually support removing the link to Google's regular web search. Everyone with a pulse knows Google; it is what most people default to when searching already. Since that is the case, the link to it will help only some tiny minority of people who don't know what a search engine is, while the lack of that link probably will assist a fair number of people – I would think many more than the minority living under rocks, who don't know what a regular search is – by tending to funnel them to the niche searches of books, scholar, etc. which so often is exactly the prompt users need to learn about the existence of such niche types of searches, for finding good sources. Also adding a link to WP:FENS might be in order – though since I created that page, I suppose I have a "COI" in suggesting it). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting duplicates

Should one delete multiple finances of the same template, if they are dated differently?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerfjkl (talk • contribs) 16:11, April 24, 2021 (UTC)

Hi Qwerfjkl. I haven't seen that before. Can you provide a link to a page where you found this? Anyway, "yes", if they really are exact duplicates, but for the date, remove them. While the date added does provide some information on its own, I don't see anything about that close to compelling enough to warrant the duplication. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank ypi, I'll try and find the page I was referencing.

(finances = instances (autocorrect)) ― Qwerfjkl|✉ 15:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]