Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryon&oldid=9939921
How many different ways do we need to express that an article should be edited? When did Wikipedia become about editing pages to tell others how to edit pages?
I would support either radically cutting down the number of these templates, or limiting their use by policy to two total top-level boxes per page. Templates would be ordered by priority, so something ridiculous like "POV check" wouldn't have a chance if there are two important templates on the page already.
More controversially, I would even say that there's no point in an article being on Cleanup and VfD at the same time. Both are instruments of exposure, it's enough to use one of them and hope people fix the article because they see it there. Otherwise people will just keep adding Cleanup to any article on VfD out of fear that it will otherwise not get fixed before being deleted.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller (erik_moeller@gmx.de) [050205 11:30]:
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryon&oldid=9939921 How many different ways do we need to express that an article should be edited? When did Wikipedia become about editing pages to tell others how to edit pages?
It's such a pity {{toomanyboxes}} fell to [[WP:TFD]].
- d.
'Tis a pity inclusionists feel the need to make personal attacks all the time.
RickK
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote: David Gerard stated for the record:
It's such a pity {{toomanyboxes}} fell to [[WP:TFD]].
'Tis a pity deletionists have no sense of humor.
Rick stated for the record:
'Tis a pity inclusionists feel the need to make personal attacks all the time.
RickK
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote: David Gerard stated for the record:
It's such a pity {{toomanyboxes}} fell to [[WP:TFD]].
'Tis a pity deletionists have no sense of humor.
A personal attack, tautologically, must be directed at a person. Which person do you think I am attacking?
Anybody who disagrees with you, obviously.
RickK
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote: Rick stated for the record:
'Tis a pity inclusionists feel the need to make personal attacks all the time.
RickK
Sean Barrett wrote: David Gerard stated for the record:
It's such a pity {{toomanyboxes}} fell to [[WP:TFD]].
'Tis a pity deletionists have no sense of humor.
A personal attack, tautologically, must be directed at a person. Which person do you think I am attacking?
Rick wrote:
Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Rick stated for the record:
'Tis a pity inclusionists feel the need to make personal attacks all the time.
A personal attack, tautologically, must be directed at a person. Which person do you think I am attacking?
Anybody who disagrees with you, obviously.
RickK
So, err, its _not_ personal then?
Erik Moeller wrote:
Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryon&oldid=9939921
Beautiful! By the time readers get to the content, they are in a properly skeptical frame of mind.
I don't know that any new rules are necessary though; I doubt it's very common for an article to get so much attention, but for all of it to be superficial. Usually somebody develops enough curiosity to research it in more depth and justify removing most of the tags.
The documentation for each template could include a sort of "hierarchy"; people putting on VfD should be able to have the tag "overwrite" the others, since not much point in cleaning up or NPOVing an article that's about to be deleted.
Stan
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:32:25 +0100, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryon&oldid=9939921
Ok I'm impressed but on the other hand be glad it didn't have half a dozen stub notices on it. One option would be to put the majority of tags on talk pages. In fact everything except an apology notice (something along the lines of "it has come to our attention that this page is below our normal standards. We apologise this and hope the problem will be fixed soon. If you think you can fix this yourself please click here" ok a bit less coperate sounding would be good), VFD tags and protected tags could be put on talk pages.
I agree that we should move the tag location of many tags to the talk pages. [[WP:RM]] does this with the {{move}} tags. I suppose a {{tagged}} tag could be made to indicate the sub-par-ness of the article, with a link to the talk: page and an edit link.
Stacey Greenstein aka UtherSRG
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 01:56:07 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:32:25 +0100, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryon&oldid=9939921
Ok I'm impressed but on the other hand be glad it didn't have half a dozen stub notices on it. One option would be to put the majority of tags on talk pages. In fact everything except an apology notice (something along the lines of "it has come to our attention that this page is below our normal standards. We apologise this and hope the problem will be fixed soon. If you think you can fix this yourself please click here" ok a bit less coperate sounding would be good), VFD tags and protected tags could be put on talk pages.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
At 09:01 PM 2/4/2005 -0500, Stacey Greenstein wrote:
I agree that we should move the tag location of many tags to the talk pages. [[WP:RM]] does this with the {{move}} tags. I suppose a {{tagged}} tag could be made to indicate the sub-par-ness of the article, with a link to the talk: page and an edit link.
If nothing else, I think the "stub" tags (and associated categories) should go to the talk pages. These stub categories are very "meta", in that they don't group articles based on subject matter so much as they group them based on their characteristics as articles. Things that are only of use to editors should generally stay off the main articles, IMO.
I think this would be an interesting project for the developers:
Create a kind of tag that, when placed on a non-talk page, displays a "this article is sub-par" kind of message, but puts a more descriptive message on the talk page.
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:13:42 -0800, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
At 09:01 PM 2/4/2005 -0500, Stacey Greenstein wrote:
I agree that we should move the tag location of many tags to the talk pages. [[WP:RM]] does this with the {{move}} tags. I suppose a {{tagged}} tag could be made to indicate the sub-par-ness of the article, with a link to the talk: page and an edit link.
If nothing else, I think the "stub" tags (and associated categories) should go to the talk pages. These stub categories are very "meta", in that they don't group articles based on subject matter so much as they group them based on their characteristics as articles. Things that are only of use to editors should generally stay off the main articles, IMO.
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.5 - Release Date: 2/3/2005
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 01:56:07 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
One option would be to put the majority of tags on talk pages. In fact everything except an apology notice (something along the lines of "it has come to our attention that this page is below our normal standards. We apologise this and hope the problem will be fixed soon. If you think you can fix this yourself please click here"
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:23:07 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I still think we need an apology template of some kind pointing to the talk page.
-- geni
I heartily agree with this suggestion. Delightfully simple. At a single move, articles are not cluttered by notices for editors, and the talk page can have as many templates and explanation as needed.
Why shouldn't we do this?
About the only other issue would be that maybe two or three grades of severity of "apology" would be needed. I.E.: * "It has been suggested that this articles has *major flaws*, see talk page." * "It has been suggested that this article has /issues needed to be resolved/, see talk page." * "It has been suggested that this article is /below-average/. See talk page for issues." * "It has been suggested that this article may need further work. See talk page for improvement suggestions."
Text size could be largest for the first notice and decrease - with the last notice much smaller than the "Major flaws" one.
Zoney
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:23:07 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
I still think we need an apology template of some kind pointing to the talk page.
I heartily agree with this suggestion. Delightfully simple. At a single move, articles are not cluttered by notices for editors, and the talk page can have as many templates and explanation as needed.
No - this is just as stupid as the current templates. There *is* no talk page the great majority of our mirrors.
More self-referential crap that I will delete on sight.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:19:08 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
No - this is just as stupid as the current templates. There *is* no talk page the great majority of our mirrors.
More self-referential crap that I will delete on sight.
-- mav
Ah yes, our delightful mirrors. Hadn't thought of that. Although it's a disaster anyways with their snapshots grabbing all kinds of junk from us that can't be fixed until their next general update.
Actually, I'm not convinced that's a valid objection to geni's suggestion. There is a problem anyway if a mirror grabs a below-average version of an article.
If only one template is used, noting a previously observed problem (Major flaw, serious issue, below average-ness) that is surely enough for a reader to be helped in their judgement of the article. If they are on a mirror and can't find out what the problem is (cause of no talk page) then tough cookie, they should have gone to Wikipedia or a better mirror.
The point is that the current templates are often instructions to editors.
Zoney
--- Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that the current templates are often instructions to editors.
That is what talk pages and edit comments are for.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
At 07:58 PM 2/11/2005 -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that the current templates are often instructions to editors.
That is what talk pages and edit comments are for.
Hear hear. Wikimedia has tons of wonderful features for assisting editors, but the actual text of the article that we're using them to write is intended primarily for _readers'_ benefit IMO. The "meta" stuff should be hidden behind-the-scenes wherever humanly possible.
--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
At 07:58 PM 2/11/2005 -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:
That is what talk pages and edit comments are for.
Hear hear. Wikimedia has tons of wonderful features for assisting editors, but the actual text of the article that we're using them to write is intended primarily for _readers'_ benefit IMO. The "meta" stuff should be hidden behind-the-scenes wherever humanly possible.
Then could you or anybody else who cares about this go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Moving_tags_to_... and comment?
My moving campaign has brought this to a head and may result in a policy one way or the other.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do? http://my.yahoo.com
A general policy discussion has started about the use of self-referential templates in the main namespace (such as {{expand}} or {{cleanup}}). Specifically, we are talking about whether or not the use of HTML comments and/or talk pages are a better place for that since these types of messages are directed primarily toward writers not readers (also, using too many of these templates makes our content harder for third parties to use).
Please comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages#Moving_templat...
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:49:33 -0800 (PST), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
At 07:58 PM 2/11/2005 -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:
That is what talk pages and edit comments are for.
Hear hear. Wikimedia has tons of wonderful features for assisting editors, but the actual text of the article that we're using them to write is intended primarily for _readers'_ benefit IMO. The "meta" stuff should be hidden behind-the-scenes wherever humanly possible.
Then could you or anybody else who cares about this go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Moving_tags_to_... and comment?
My moving campaign has brought this to a head and may result in a policy one way or the other.
-- mav
No. I won't support an outright "removing tags to talk page". Like I said, some indicator needs to be given to the oft-times none-too-discerning public. Now I agree that the current templates go much much further, and offer editing instructions, and furthermore, some templates are definitely designed for the talk page, not the main article page.
But with NPOV warnings, and suchlike, SOME indication should be provided on the article page to READERS that all is not well. I see Geni / my suggestion of simple messages (at most 3/4 severities of warning) with a pointer to talk for those who wish to get involved, as a sensible suggestion.
I have outlined reasons why I think this is at least *better than the current situation*. (Yes, the message may not be seen on mirrors - but this is true for current templates, and for no (on talk only) templates)
Zoney
--- Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
No. I won't support an outright "removing tags to talk page". Like I said, some indicator needs to be given to the oft-times none-too-discerning public. Now I agree that the current templates go much much further, and offer editing instructions, and furthermore, some templates are definitely designed for the talk page, not the main article page.
Neither will I. Some templates, like {{POV}} or {{vfd}} help to warn readers. Others like {{protected}} are temporary in nature. Both of these types of templates are valid to have in the article space.
But some like {{expand}} or {{cleanup}} are primarily instructions to writers. For these, the disadvantages of having templates in the article space outweigh the advantages (as I've listed at [[Wikipedia talk:Template messages]]). Thus they should be on talk pages and, if needed, an HTML comment can be left in the article itself.
That targets the message to the intended audience while leaving articles with a minimum number of self-referential templates that need to be cleaned-up by third party users or seen by readers.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
No. I won't support an outright "removing tags to talk page".
Like I
said, some indicator needs to be given to the oft-times none-too-discerning public. Now I agree that the current
templates go
much much further, and offer editing instructions, and
furthermore,
some templates are definitely designed for the talk page, not the
main
article page.
Neither will I. Some templates, like {{POV}} or {{vfd}} help to warn readers. Others like {{protected}} are temporary in nature. Both of these types of templates are valid to have in the article space.
But some like {{expand}} or {{cleanup}} are primarily instructions to writers. For these, the disadvantages of having templates in the article space outweigh the advantages (as I've listed at [[Wikipedia talk:Template messages]]). Thus they should be on talk pages and, if needed, an HTML comment can be left in the article itself.
That targets the message to the intended audience while leaving articles with a minimum number of self-referential templates that need to be cleaned-up by third party users or seen by readers.
If it makes any difference to anyone, I'm with mav on this one.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
No - this is just as stupid as the current templates. There *is* no talk page the great majority of our mirrors.
More self-referential crap that I will delete on sight.
-- mav
So? Most of our mirrors run various bots to remove stuff so I wont be a problem for them to remove this. There is also the issue that our mirrors have very different aims to us.
I suspose we could go for blantent honesty:
"this page as you can see has serious problems and does not meet our usal standards however the odds of anyone caring enough to fix in any time frame you would describe as resonable are pretty much zlich to you had better get used to it."
--- geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
So? Most of our mirrors run various bots to remove stuff so I wont be a problem for them to remove this. There is also the issue that our mirrors have very different aims to us.
They have to do that because there is so much self-referential nonsense. Instead of adding to the work they need to do, we should at least try not to increase it.
Oh, and the two most common ways I see third party users do this is to replace every instance of 'Wikipedia' with their site's name or they just don't display any templates.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
"Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com wrote
... the two most common ways I see third party users do this is to replace
every instance of 'Wikipedia' with their site's name or they just don't
display
any templates.
My own working assumption is that writing 'Wikipedia' in Wiki-en's main name space is only acceptable if replacing it anywhere it occurs by 'this encyclopedia' makes good sense.
What do others feel about this? This issue is perhaps overdue a definitive resolution.
Charles
--- Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
My own working assumption is that writing 'Wikipedia' in Wiki-en's main name space is only acceptable if replacing it anywhere it occurs by 'this encyclopedia' makes good sense.
There still are issues of self-reference and adding meta data to content. But this may be a good idea for a very limited set of meta templates that we really can't work well without.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I was blocked yesterday for violating the 3RR. I don't fault Geni for doing this, as it was within the letter of the 3RR. However, I have questions about what the intent of the rule is. Is the rule intended as punishment of any technical violation of 3RR, even where the conflict causing the reverts has been resolved? Or is it supposed to be a mechanism for putting an end (or at least a cease-fire) to active edit wars?
Here's the short version, from my perspective. Some users figured out a way to use templates to produce a table of contents for categories. At Wikipedia talk:Categorization, this was generally seen as a very good thing for navigating large categories (and indeed may minimize some of the rationale for creating certain types of sub-categories merely to reduce the size of the parent category). Netoholic took it upon himself to "improve" the templates without much in the way of explanation about what he was doing. I reverted his changes as he seemed to be the only person who saw any problem and and a few other persons also questioned the changes he was attempting to impose. It was only after a few set of reversions that it finally came out that there are dramatic difference in the way that IE and Firefox display the templates. After understanding just how dramatic the differences are, I withdrew my objections to Netoholic's change. This was at 19:58, Feb 11, 2005. The last reversion I made was at 15:45, Feb 11, 2005.
However, before this, at 16:17, Feb 11, 2005, Netoholic had filed a complaint about me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I don't dispute that I reverted four times to the same version (while Netoholic reverted twice on two separate times to somewhat different versions). Since I generally avoid making multiple reversions, I simply was not paying that close attention to the revert rule and the timing of my reverts -- I was reacting to what appeared to be Netoholic unilaterally imposing changes, without adequately explaining the rationale and despite questions and opposition to his changes. Basically, it looked as though Netoholic was the only person who saw a problem with the templates and was not especially effective in explaining what he saw as the problem. I and others saw Netoholic's changes as clearly inferior (and indeed the second set of changes made the template nearly unusable in Firefox), so I do not feel any compunction about reverting these changes. Once it became clear just how dramatic the differences between IE and Firefox were, I agreed that one of Netoholic's earlier versions was the best choice as being least problematic in both browsers. So that was the end of the reversions. No more edit war.
However, the block was not imposed until 02:23, 12 Feb 2005, some several hours after the end of any disagreement between me and Netoholic.
So to my mind, this raises some questions -- Should the current state of the "edit war" be taken into account when imposing a block for violation of 3RR? If whatever dispute was at the root of the reversion has been resolved, does it make sense to impose a block as punishment for earlier violations (and especially as this was not a case of a repeat edit warrior who perhaps might need a slap on the hands as a reminder)? I mean, I certainly don't see myself as an edit warrior, and I'd be very surprised if anyone else saw me as such.
Bkonrad
Anyone can accidently get caught up in the 3-revert net as it is now written. Best to take it as an opportunity to take a brief vacation. The general prevalence of edit wars in certain areas was what brought this rather rough cut rule on. It occasionally catches up the unwary and the innocent. No sense of blame or guilt is appropriate.
Fred
From: "Bill Konrad" bkonrad123@sbcglobal.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:04:51 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] More thoughts on the 3-revert rule
I was blocked yesterday for violating the 3RR. I don't fault Geni for doing this, as it was within the letter of the 3RR. However, I have questions about what the intent of the rule is. Is the rule intended as punishment of any technical violation of 3RR, even where the conflict causing the reverts has been resolved? Or is it supposed to be a mechanism for putting an end (or at least a cease-fire) to active edit wars?
Here's the short version, from my perspective. Some users figured out a way to use templates to produce a table of contents for categories. At Wikipedia talk:Categorization, this was generally seen as a very good thing for navigating large categories (and indeed may minimize some of the rationale for creating certain types of sub-categories merely to reduce the size of the parent category). Netoholic took it upon himself to "improve" the templates without much in the way of explanation about what he was doing. I reverted his changes as he seemed to be the only person who saw any problem and and a few other persons also questioned the changes he was attempting to impose. It was only after a few set of reversions that it finally came out that there are dramatic difference in the way that IE and Firefox display the templates. After understanding just how dramatic the differences are, I withdrew my objections to Netoholic's change. This was at 19:58, Feb 11, 2005. The last reversion I made was at 15:45, Feb 11, 2005.
However, before this, at 16:17, Feb 11, 2005, Netoholic had filed a complaint about me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I don't dispute that I reverted four times to the same version (while Netoholic reverted twice on two separate times to somewhat different versions). Since I generally avoid making multiple reversions, I simply was not paying that close attention to the revert rule and the timing of my reverts -- I was reacting to what appeared to be Netoholic unilaterally imposing changes, without adequately explaining the rationale and despite questions and opposition to his changes. Basically, it looked as though Netoholic was the only person who saw a problem with the templates and was not especially effective in explaining what he saw as the problem. I and others saw Netoholic's changes as clearly inferior (and indeed the second set of changes made the template nearly unusable in Firefox), so I do not feel any compunction about reverting these changes. Once it became clear just how dramatic the differences between IE and Firefox were, I agreed that one of Netoholic's earlier versions was the best choice as being least problematic in both browsers. So that was the end of the reversions. No more edit war.
However, the block was not imposed until 02:23, 12 Feb 2005, some several hours after the end of any disagreement between me and Netoholic.
So to my mind, this raises some questions -- Should the current state of the "edit war" be taken into account when imposing a block for violation of 3RR? If whatever dispute was at the root of the reversion has been resolved, does it make sense to impose a block as punishment for earlier violations (and especially as this was not a case of a repeat edit warrior who perhaps might need a slap on the hands as a reminder)? I mean, I certainly don't see myself as an edit warrior, and I'd be very surprised if anyone else saw me as such.
Bkonrad
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bill Konrad wrote
Or is it supposed to be a mechanism for putting an end (or at least a cease-fire) to active edit wars?
3RR is there because the community (in the end) came to support it. Edit warring 'for its own sake' is disliked. The fact that it may sometimes catch up people who then are compelled to have a time out is not, I think, considered a major disadvantage. It lends itself to getting a little perspective. In your case, your degree of perspective can't seriously be faulted, so it might well seem superfluous.
Charles
Bill Konrad (bkonrad123@sbcglobal.net) [050213 02:28]:
I was blocked yesterday for violating the 3RR. I don't fault Geni for doing this, as it was within the letter of the 3RR. However, I have questions about what the intent of the rule is. Is the rule intended as punishment of any technical violation of 3RR, even where the conflict causing the reverts has been resolved? Or is it supposed to be a mechanism for putting an end (or at least a cease-fire) to active edit wars?
As the [[WP:3RR]] policy page says, it's intended to forestall sterile edit wars.
However, the block was not imposed until 02:23, 12 Feb 2005, some several hours after the end of any disagreement between me and Netoholic. So to my mind, this raises some questions -- Should the current state of the "edit war" be taken into account when imposing a block for violation of 3RR? If whatever dispute was at the root of the reversion has been resolved, does it make sense to impose a block as punishment for earlier violations (and especially as this was not a case of a repeat edit warrior who perhaps might need a slap on the hands as a reminder)? I mean, I certainly don't see myself as an edit warrior, and I'd be very surprised if anyone else saw me as such.
I'm not sure I'd bother placing one so far after the event. But the 3RR is supposed to be such a silly thing to violate that it can operate as an electric fence. So a good thing to do would be to email the blocking admin (or another admin), apologise for getting taunted by the perceived foolishness of another into violating it, and asking to be unblocked. Or something like that.
- d.
These cleanup templates are all listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cleanup
TD
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 6:32 PM To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Template madness
Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryon&oldid=9939921
How many different ways do we need to express that an article should be edited? When did Wikipedia become about editing pages to tell others how to edit pages?
I would support either radically cutting down the number of these templates, or limiting their use by policy to two total top-level boxes per page. Templates would be ordered by priority, so something ridiculous like "POV check" wouldn't have a chance if there are two important templates on the page already.
More controversially, I would even say that there's no point in an article being on Cleanup and VfD at the same time. Both are instruments of exposure, it's enough to use one of them and hope people fix the article because they see it there. Otherwise people will just keep adding Cleanup to any article on VfD out of fear that it will otherwise not get fixed before being deleted.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
But due to an unfortunate oversight, I see the "cite sources" and "unreferenced" tags are missing. ;-) ~~~~
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:32:25 +0100, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryon&oldid=9939921 How many different ways do we need to express that an article should be edited?
There was originally a single Cleanup tag, which pointed to the Cleanup page, and the person who put it there could explain in detail what needed to be done. Then, for some reason (and I never saw a vote on the issue), that became unacceptable, and tons of Cleanup tags were created. So instead of one, and a link where the person tagging could explain all of the reasons that the article needed Cleanup, we're now required to put a separate tag for each reason. I would much prefer going back to the original way of doing things.
RickK
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote: But due to an unfortunate oversight, I see the "cite sources" and "unreferenced" tags are missing. ;-) ~~~~
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:32:25 +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryon&oldid=9939921 How many different ways do we need to express that an article should be edited?
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Erik Moeller wrote:
Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryon&oldid=9939921
That's nothing. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgman%2C_Michigan_school_shooting_plot
It used to have six tags until David Gerard removed {{cleanup-importance}}, though it has recently gained a manually-created note equivalent to {{in-use}}.
BTW, I agree that this proliferation of tags on the article page is not particularly helpful for readers.
Bkonrad
There needs to be something on the article itself that signals there's an acknowledged problem with a page, because if readers see something that's clearly biased, but it has no dispute tag on it, they'll think Wikipedia is satisfied with the bias. The tag tells them there's an on-going content dispute, which tends to enhance our credibility. The tag might also encourage the reader to try editing the article.
Slim
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 23:18:24 -0500, Bill Konrad bkonrad123@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryon&oldid=9939921
That's nothing. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgman%2C_Michigan_school_shooting_plot
It used to have six tags until David Gerard removed {{cleanup-importance}}, though it has recently gained a manually-created note equivalent to {{in-use}}.
BTW, I agree that this proliferation of tags on the article page is not particularly helpful for readers.
Bkonrad
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
There needs to be something on the article itself that signals there's an acknowledged problem with a page, because if readers see something that's clearly biased, but it has no dispute tag on it, they'll think Wikipedia is satisfied with the bias. The tag tells them there's an on-going content dispute, which tends to enhance our credibility. The tag might also encourage the reader to try editing the article.
Sure. I'm not saying all the tags should go, but I don't think including so many tags is not going to help it get fixed any faster than one or two. And if you look at the edit history, there really isn't any sort of "on-going content dispute"--only a random editor who stopped by and slapped a whole bunch of tags on the article and has not since returned. Though he/she did at least leave a note about what they felt was not NPOV on the talk page, which I think is an absolute minimum for placing an NPOV tag on an article in the absence of an ongoing dispute.
Bkonrad
Erik Moeller wrote
How many different ways do we need to express that an article should be edited?
I don't know. Of those on the cited Kryon page, the 'importance' tag is de trop.
More controversially, I would even say that there's no point in an article being on Cleanup and VfD at the same time.
Disagree. There is every reason to think that good cleanup would sometimes change Delete votes to Keep votes, and no reason to think the same people read the two lists.
Both are instruments of exposure, it's enough to use one of them and hope people fix the article because they see it there. Otherwise people will just keep adding Cleanup to any article on VfD out of fear that it will otherwise not get fixed before being deleted.
Why is that a problem? Article X survives VfD, still needs cleaning up; X displayed one tag, then two for about a week, then a different tag. Seems a rational process.
Charles
I see nothing wrong with any of those templates. It's on VfD because someone thought it wasn't worth keeping as an article, but if it's decided to keep, it still needs to be cleaned up and the POV cut down. What's wrong with that? The VfD template says "you are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it".
Why can't cleanup proceed if the person who initially created it thinks it can be kept? Do we just totally ignore the appearance of articles listed on VfD, or do we have to wait till the article is cleaned up before we put it on VfD?
Or would you prefer we have no VfD at all, which is probably where you're aiming.
RickK
Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote: Take a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kryon&oldid=9939921
How many different ways do we need to express that an article should be edited? When did Wikipedia become about editing pages to tell others how to edit pages?
I would support either radically cutting down the number of these templates, or limiting their use by policy to two total top-level boxes per page. Templates would be ordered by priority, so something ridiculous like "POV check" wouldn't have a chance if there are two important templates on the page already.
More controversially, I would even say that there's no point in an article being on Cleanup and VfD at the same time. Both are instruments of exposure, it's enough to use one of them and hope people fix the article because they see it there. Otherwise people will just keep adding Cleanup to any article on VfD out of fear that it will otherwise not get fixed before being deleted.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
Rick said:
I see nothing wrong with any of those templates. It's on VfD because someone thought it wasn't worth keeping as an article, but if it's decided to keep, it still needs to be cleaned up and the POV cut down. What's wrong with that? The VfD template says "you are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it".
If the templates belong there, and it survives VfD, some or all of them will reappear on the article and it will get the attention it needs.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Rick said:
I see nothing wrong with any of those templates. It's on VfD because someone thought it wasn't worth keeping as an article, but if it's decided to keep, it still needs to be cleaned up and the POV cut down. What's wrong with that? The VfD template says "you are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it".
If the templates belong there, and it survives VfD, some or all of them will reappear on the article and it will get the attention it needs.
I really wish someone had some proof to back up the tagists mantra that "if I tag this article, it will improve". People improve articles because they are knowledgeable about and want to write about a subject, not because it has a whole stack of tags from editors who want to rack up their edit rack but would preferable not to do any research (even of the type-article-name-into-google variety.
Pete/Pcb21 (pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com) [050206 10:30]:
I really wish someone had some proof to back up the tagists mantra that "if I tag this article, it will improve". People improve articles because they are knowledgeable about and want to write about a subject, not because it has a whole stack of tags from editors who want to rack up their edit rack but would preferable not to do any research (even of the type-article-name-into-google variety.
{{unreferenced}} has attracted references. Check my talk page.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 (pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com) [050206 10:30]:
{{unreferenced}} has attracted references. Check my talk page.
I am glad some templates are getting a response :). It does really get on my nerves though that if I have a specific comment on how a particular article might be improved, I have to use the talk page, but for some reason general comments that might apply to lots of pages (i.e. those that are ripe for templatizing) are allowed to be on the article page. It's illogical and not neat.
Pete/Pcb21
Gee, another personal attack on other people's actions and motives. Have you interviewed anybody who puts tags on articles to ask their motives? I don't give a flying f*ck about my edit count, I have no clue what it is. I put tags on articles A LOT, because they need to be fixed. Not necessarily need to be looked up and more information added, but need to be wikified and the grammar fixed. And after you've done about 20 of those in a row, it gets old and you want to move on to other things.
But such an idea is beneath those like you who feel that the only valued Users in wikipedia are those who write a hundred stubs with one sentence to them in poor grammar, rather than those of us who go around cleaning up after them.
Why do I even subscribe to this list? It's turned into nothing but people writing about how they are so much better than everybody else.
RickK
Pete/Pcb21 pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com wrote: Tony Sidaway wrote:
Rick said:
I see nothing wrong with any of those templates. It's on VfD because someone thought it wasn't worth keeping as an article, but if it's decided to keep, it still needs to be cleaned up and the POV cut down. What's wrong with that? The VfD template says "you are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it".
If the templates belong there, and it survives VfD, some or all of them will reappear on the article and it will get the attention it needs.
I really wish someone had some proof to back up the tagists mantra that "if I tag this article, it will improve". People improve articles because they are knowledgeable about and want to write about a subject, not because it has a whole stack of tags from editors who want to rack up their edit rack but would preferable not to do any research (even of the type-article-name-into-google variety.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'