Template talk:Templateapproval

About the template
A basic template, meant to be used on the talk page of the relevant new proposed template, and to show whether it has been approved or not. This was created after it was discovered that support created in 2018 was also an unapproved template (but only discovered recently). It isn't meant to be used by newbies so the complexity is not a problem. It accepts three variables,,   and. The  is completely optional, but here's how it works:

will produce (still in my userspace):

will produce:

will produce (note that the date variable will not work on pending):

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion by the community

 * Support. Currently we have the experimental template in place, but I think this is a clearer way to communicate whether or not a template has been approved by the community. However, I propose we don’t add the “approved” template to the dozens of already approved, widely used templates, but only to templates that are approved going forward. The date approved as a parameter for the “approved” parameter would be useful as well. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 10:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is only for new templates (forgot to mention it earlier, but thanks for bringing it up). So by the looks of it, V line will be declined and thus the template becomes handy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We already have experimental so I cannot see that we need this. Declined templates should be deleted (with or without a move to user space as well) so there is no need to label them. Pashley (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If that template is always added. If I find a template I don't know half a year after it was created, without the template, I don't know whether it was never noticed or never discussed, or approved in a discussion at some other page. If new templates were created every few years, that would not be a problem, but I suppose we cannot rely on that. This template could include a link to the discussion, first when discussed, and later with a permanent link to the discussion. I don't know whether the template is needed, but I think it might be a good idea. –LPfi (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I could as well add an extension to that which I didn't think of. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. The concept of this template definitely is good, but I am not convinced that a separate template is needed. To me, it makes more sense to add onto experimental, allowing it to 1) display a status of approval (pending, approved) and 2) link to the ongoing (or if approved, the archived) discussions, so that they can easily be found should they be needed in future. It definitely has my support as added functionality to Experimental, but I'm less convinced about the stand-alone template. It should be noted that I don't oppose it either - it does fill a gap in the market. -- Wauteurz (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the extension. We don't need two templates for this, so better to stick with the established one, which also has an easier-to-remember name. Some work is needed on the wordings, links, syntax etc., but I see no problems in the concept. The syntax won't be too complicated, and the people clicking "edit" in the template namespace should not be too easily confused by a template :-) –LPfi (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ... I don't see a point and right now it's superfluous complexity for negligible gain. If it's a rogue editor doing some damage, just remove/block the stuff. Otherwise go by the rule that edits are encouraged - and we can evaluate the template usefulness after some time, if someone stumbles upon it and sees it unfit. experimental is enough for me. It's not like there are 50 new templates a day here, anyway... -- andree.sk (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)