Template talk:Extraregion

Experimental
As this template is still experimental, it should only be added to one article; instead, it's been added to about a score. Is this appropriate? LtPowers (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I though it would be useful to show a number of different examples and how often it occurs.--Traveler100 (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason this is still experimental? It's already caught on in practice, with more than 80 articles converted or created for this purpose. It seems to do a decent job filling a gap we had, and in its absence all these articles would either revert to having no proper status and/or be good candidates for deletion under current policy otherwise. While it has been suggested that we need to formulate a model these pages (and I agree), this template still serves to mark an article type we seem to have had broad support for, and I think the experimental stage for that is long over. Working out a model for the articles themselves can still be done as the next step. Texugo (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason it's still experimental is that the people using it never stopped to generate a consensus for it. I hope you can appreciate the need for us to go through established consensus procedures, rather than letting new conventions arise by sneaking things under the radar.  Powers (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You should know that I am the last one to try to sneak things under the radar. This was the solution arrived at through the very long discussion started way back in 2009 at What is an article?, where the closest thing to opposition expressed was when you said it's "fine as far as it goes" but needs the additional step of setting up guidelines and possibly a new template, which is the stage I'm trying to usher us toward. Unless you still know of some fiddling that needs to be done here or you propose to trash the whole thing and go back to the drawing board with some other suggestion, let's make this step official and move on to the next.Texugo (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about that discussion. We certainly have a consensus for this type of article, but not a strong consensus for this specific template.  Maybe that's enough, though.  Powers (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, so given the apparent absence of alternative propositions or outstanding objections, I'm going to plunge forward and call it. Feel free to revert if there is something we must resolve first. Texugo (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)