On 12/13/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
I find the unreferenced tag to be useless. Either it says that the article contains some unreferenced facts, in which case we'd be better off tagging those few articles which don't contain unreferenced facts with the opposite tag,
Then it shouldn't be used to tag the article. That's not what it's for.
This could certainly be made more clear. Right now it's on the top of [[Homosexuality and Christianity]], which was the first one I checked.
(Maybe I should add a tag which says "This article has a tag on it which isn't appropriate. You can help Wikipedia by removing the tag.")
or it says that the article contains zero references, which is already evident to anyone scanning the article anyway.
The tag puts the article in the category. It also looks like a big ugly box telling the editor "PLEASE DO BETTER KTHX."
I can think of ways to make the template even uglier, if that really is the point of it.
If you want to put the tag on the talk page or use a category, in the case of articles with absolutely no references, I wouldn't object. But I don't think that is a solution for what I'm saying, which is that we shouldn't be creating such articles in the first place.
I suggest that we can only lead by example and peer pressure, and the template does IMO help there.
- d.
I guess you're saying the template has been a success. I sure haven't seen this.
Anthony