--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: OK. What's the abstracted general idea superceding both 'disputes' and 'suggested action' - 'Editorial issues?' Whats the term to use? Great! Another support vote - and none too soon either. know what it's all about. Im assuming that youre speaking for yourself, and therefore I may infer that you are a newbie? If not, then I cant simply accept your blanket statement as any thing comparable to a 'poll targeted at newbies.' For example. Let's stick with the first until the creases Lets not. Lets move in the general direction which we all can agree on and sort the particulars along the way. So what would be a better term? SV __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

--- MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: > While the red template looks great... My gosh - thanks. (blush - hope my lines indent properly BTW) >...it doesn't help > explain to people > what's wrong with the article. We do use our own language of shortcuts of sorts - NPOV, POV, Merge, etc. And while I think that we can get carried away with the acronyms (I do it too - FLOABT, etc), I dont think that Wikipedia readers are retards. Hence while its proper to be explanatory, its not proper to assume end user stupidity. People learn rather quickly that if they click on a link - they can go to some place that explains the links. If its done right, the explanation will be well written and even a few sentences may be enough to satisfy the need for info. >I'm not a newbie, but > if we put tags on > an article we should make sure a casual reader as > well as newbie and > experienced editors understands what it means. How do we do that? Even with the current templates, I have no idea what the real issues of dispute are - nor should I know these from the talk page. Granted each link should link directly to a talk page section, but I was lazy, and thought somebody might just restore the status quo. They did shortly after - so whats the point of doing anything at all? At least we can agree that the status quo does not work: It does little more than explain in pedantic language the general fact that theres some dispute going on, and then (as Alphax agreed) just says "see the talk page." Not only is it no more useful than the {{editag}} idea, its also an excessive WP:Self ref on the article - hence its a blight, and an obstacle to reading articles. I think this adds to the overall impression of Wikipedias "second rate" status. > Having the word > "mergefrom" in a red box on top of an article really > isn't helpful. > What problem is it trying to solve? Is it meant to > save the space the > templates take or don't you like how it is now? Its meant to provide due notice of a dispute while limiting the disruption factor such notices. Its tidying up our messes - and yes, it dispenses with the illusion that such disriptions are somehow inherently helpful. For those who claim that "well the excessive disruptiveness of these templates motivate editors to fix the problem," Id like to see some support for that claim. I rather think that people have just gotten used to them, and that some have gotten in the habit of using these messages (and the processes they represent) to keep an article in state of perpetual disarray. > Personally I can see nothing wrong with the current > templates, but if > it must change, just put the merge bit (and all > suggested actions) > above the "disputed" heading and only put disputed > stuff below it. > > --Mgm Mechanically, the Disputed: header is stuck as being a header. You havent answered my question that you suggest a better term. Separate editags for general "disputes" and for "suggestions?" Is that what you are suggesting? SV --------------------------------- Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.