On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll
The Cunctator schreef:
> On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
> and that a word with a spelling error is marked
> > "spelled wrong".
> Fix spelling errors. THIS IS A WIKI. Are you seriously advocating that
error should be marked with a footnote *instead* of being
I'm sorry, no, I think I was a bit too sarcastic.
One reason these tags may be necessary is because talk page don't work
as good for these issues as a few years ago.
It used to be that if you saw a problem with an article that you
couldn't immediately solve yourself, you'd leave a message on the talk
page: "Look at that sentence, it doesn't sound right, does anyone have
an idea how to improve it?"
It used to be that only a small fraction of our articles had talk pages.
If I came across an article with a blue link to the talk page, I always
took a look; sometimes there was an interesting didcussion, sometimes
just a cleanup notice.
Nowadays, 90% of our articles have a talk page, and 80% of them are
So what you're saying is that in-page template cruft is necessary because
talk pages have been taken over by template cruft?
I hope you see the problem here.
Talk pages have indeed been taken over by templates, every time a new
wikiproject tag is being added. Sometimes I think it would be handy to have
a third page with articles. The article page, discussion page, and template
page. That way when you go to a discussion page you have a good change that
the article is actually being discussed.
What was that comparison again someone mentioned a while ago, the German
wikipedia likes quality, the English wikipedia likes templates etc.