The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 52 Pickup 09:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Recentism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The roundabout 50 transclusions of this template serve no actual purpose imo. Typical usage examples include this one, this two, or this three, all of which are better and more accurately covered by other maintenance templates and/or editorial measures. But please judge for yourself, maybe there is a piece of gold in there that fully redeems this template. Dorfklatsch 01:11, January 9, 2008 01:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is no other template that makes this type of warning, a very valid warning considering the nature of Wikipedia. There's ((current)), but that is only good for when an event is currently happening. A good example is Residential property market in the United Kingdom, which tells only of how prices have exploded in the last decade. The UK has had a residential property market for a long time before this period, so this article is slanted towards recent events, hence the warning. - 52 Pickup (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - while the three examples given in the nom are very good examples of the misuse of this template, 52 Pickup's example is a good one for why this template COULD have some use. Murderbike (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while there is clearly some misuse of this template, that does not detract from its clear utility when it is correctly employed. Happy‑melon 11:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom comment 52 Pickup cites a good example indeed, but it's still the exception to the rule, and working on the article instead of slapping a tag on it is the preferred course. However, I'm not saying (or believing, for that matter) that the template cannot be useful, rather that it systemically encourages suboptimal use, as witnessed by the majority of transclusions. Dorfklatsch 12:53, January 9, 2008

• Here's one particularly bad example, actually the one which inspired me to file this TfD. Dorfklatsch 12:57, January 9, 2008

• That is indeed a very bad use of the template, and you are right in it is misused in many cases. Your nomination has brought this problem to attention - thanks for that. Of course working on the article instead of slapping on the tag is preferred, but then that could be said for almost all warning tags. One problem with the template is that it does not categorise the article like other tags , making it tricky to keep track of where the tag is used (apart from looking at the Whatlinkshere page). If the tag placed the article into a category like other tags do, that would make management (i.e. stopping incorrect use) a lot easier. I'll look into it. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point about the cat inclusion. Since it doesn't look like consensus to delete anyway, let's just wait another day to give others a chance to weigh in with additional arguments. If no one has presented other reasons (or decided agreement) to delete in the next 24 hours, I'll withdraw the nomination. Dorfklatsch 16:34, January 9, 2008

• Keep per Murderbike and Happy-melon's points; this template should place articles in a relevant category, as 52 Pickup suggests, and if possible be reworded to differentiate it more clearly from ((current)). Perhaps something along the lines of "this article or section should be expanded to include additional historical information, as it is currently slanted towards recent events." Warofdreams talk 19:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Another good point to which I agree. 52 Pickup has already created the cat and included it in the template. To give it a more proper maintenance tag appearance and functionality, I also added the optional article/section and date parameters. Dorfklatsch 19:33, January 9, 2008

• Ahem. Ok, this is becoming more of a template improvement drive now. I've creating a /doc and included it. Please consider the TfD withdrawn by nominator. Dorfklatsch 20:14, January 9, 2008

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). No further edits should be made to this section.