From [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inline Templates]]:
I only just joined this project, so forgive me if my suggestion is somehow naïve. I use the 'who' tag often, as in:
Some groups[*attribution needed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words*] oppose these measures.
It seems to me that one could simplify this tag to "who?", as in:
Some groups[who?] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution oppose these measures.
Can we PLEASE make a blanket ban on editorial footnotes in the middle of sentences?
pretty please?
please?
please?
The Cunctator schreef:
Some groups[*attribution needed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words*] oppose these measures.
Can we PLEASE make a blanket ban on editorial footnotes in the middle of sentences?
No. It's important that a sentence without a citation is marked "citation needed", that a phrase containing weasel words is marked "contains weasel words", and that a word with a spelling error is marked "spelled wrong".
How else would the reader know there is something wrong with the text?
pretty please?
No.
please?
No.
please?
Of course not.
By the way, I've just added
.Template-Fact {display:none}
to my monobook.css, just after ".cleanup {display:none}". Works well!
Eugene
On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
The Cunctator schreef:
Some groups[*attribution needed <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words%3E*] oppose these measures.
Can we PLEASE make a blanket ban on editorial footnotes in the middle of sentences?
No. It's important that a sentence without a citation is marked "citation needed",
I'm not arguing against that. Though it should be STRONGLY prefered that people find the citation themselves, if they so care.
that a phrase containing weasel words is marked
"contains weasel words",
Change weasel words. THIS IS A WIKI.
and that a word with a spelling error is marked
"spelled wrong".
Fix spelling errors. THIS IS A WIKI. Are you seriously advocating that a spelling error should be marked with a footnote *instead* of being fixed?
How else would the reader know there is something wrong with the text?
Because the reader is not an idiot.
The Cunctator schreef:
On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@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 a spelling error should be marked with a footnote *instead* of being fixed?
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 empty.[*]
Because the reader is not an idiot.
Eugene
[*] I've got the talk page header boxes and the wikiproject pages turned of in CSS as well. I wish that that would make red links of talk pages containing boxes only...
On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
The Cunctator schreef:
On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@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 a spelling error should be marked with a footnote *instead* of being
fixed?
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 empty.[*]
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.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
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 empty.[*]
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.
His solution may be off, but he does have a point in identifying a problem. Using the talk pages for some kinds of meta data tends to detract from using them for discussion.
Ec
On 6/29/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
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 empty.[*]
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.
His solution may be off, but he does have a point in identifying a problem. Using the talk pages for some kinds of meta data tends to detract from using them for discussion.
I totally agree.
On 29/06/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
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.
His solution may be off, but he does have a point in identifying a problem. Using the talk pages for some kinds of meta data tends to detract from using them for discussion.
The problem is, the metadata is useful. It's not simply useless fluff, so writing it off as a stupid idea or something to get rid of is a bad move.
Well, it *can* be useful, anyway :-) It's certainly a lot better than it was a couple of years ago, when we just had "project banners" - now there's actual embedded metadata there, information about the quality of the article or about certain fundamental aspects of it ("is about a living persion" being perhaps the most useful); thanks to these templates we're beginning to have some kind of an idea of what our overall status is. It's fragmented, but it's improving.
It went on the talk page because everyone accepted it couldn't go on the article, and the talk page - the meta-page devoted to that article - seemed the obvious place for it. If you want to get the talk page "back", we need to find some place to put article-specific metadata and keep it accessible - nuking it won't help anyone.
On 6/29/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
The Cunctator schreef:
On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@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
a
spelling error should be marked with a footnote *instead* of being
fixed?
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 empty.[*]
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.
Garion96
on 6/29/07 8:40 PM, Garion96 at garion96@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I like this idea. As the number of Projects grows, so will the number of templates. This would free up the Discussion Pages for just what their name describes: Discussion.
Marc Riddell
From: Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new and ugly trend Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 07:12:17 -0400
on 6/29/07 8:40 PM, Garion96 at garion96@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I like this idea. As the number of Projects grows, so will the number of templates. This would free up the Discussion Pages for just what their name describes: Discussion.
Marc Riddell
Run now to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_van_Beethoven ! Blink and you'll miss it! Excessive templating!
Evidently Beethoven is a Deaf icon. Learn something new every day.
Moreschi
_________________________________________________________________ Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
On 6/30/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
From: Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A new and ugly trend Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 07:12:17 -0400
on 6/29/07 8:40 PM, Garion96 at garion96@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I like this idea. As the number of Projects grows, so will the number of templates. This would free up the Discussion Pages for just what their name describes: Discussion.
Marc Riddell
Run now to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_van_Beethoven ! Blink and you'll miss it! Excessive templating!
Evidently Beethoven is a Deaf icon. Learn something new every day.
Moreschi
Win tickets to the sold out Live Earth concert! http://liveearth.uk.msn.com
Who wouldn't claim Beethoven if they could? I only put plants tags on botanist and plant articles--but putting them there is good, because there are two editors who go through and clean up technical aspects of these articles and a handful of others who copyedit articles that have been recently tagged with WP Plants, so the tags serve a pupose--but, yes, a dedicated templates page would be good.
KP
K P wrote:
On 6/30/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
From: Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net
on 6/29/07 8:40 PM, Garion96 at garion96@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I like this idea. As the number of Projects grows, so will the number of templates. This would free up the Discussion Pages for just what their name describes: Discussion.
Run now to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_van_Beethoven ! Blink and you'll miss it! Excessive templating!
Evidently Beethoven is a Deaf icon. Learn something new every day.
Who wouldn't claim Beethoven if they could? I only put plants tags on botanist and plant articles--but putting them there is good, because there are two editors who go through and clean up technical aspects of these articles and a handful of others who copyedit articles that have been recently tagged with WP Plants, so the tags serve a pupose--but, yes, a dedicated templates page would be good.
Very few of us have a potted Beethoven in our entrance hall, and having a tag on the plant reduces the number of times that we will need to answer the same boring question.
I would take the idea of a templates page a little further to include a wider range of metadata about the article. The bibliographic data that accompanies the frequent over-referencing of articles results in an almost uneditable thicket. The message to would-be editors is that the rules allow them to edit, but they are on their own in any attempt to wade through the markup to fix even the most egregious of mechanical errors.
Ec
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 6/29/07 8:40 PM, Garion96 at garion96@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I like this idea. As the number of Projects grows, so will the number of templates. This would free up the Discussion Pages for just what their name describes: Discussion.
Marc Riddell
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Now I love this idea. It's very frustrating to go to a talk page to participate in the discussion how to improve it, only to find that the "discussion" consists of a bunch of bot-placed (or effectively bot-placed) templates.
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
The Cunctator schreef:
On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@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 a spelling error should be marked with a footnote *instead* of being fixed?
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.
I warned them, but they didn't listen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_using_WikiProject_talk_page_tem...
On 6/29/07, SPUI drspui@gmail.com wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
The Cunctator schreef:
On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@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 a spelling error should be marked with a footnote *instead* of being fixed?
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.
I warned them, but they didn't listen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_using_WikiProject_talk_page_tem...
Some folks did listen, now the templates can be closed, and must be clicked on to open all of them--this means that folks can see that it is a talk page.
It's a good point about the project banners. Maybe there should be a project banner page in addition to a talk page.
KP
On 6/30/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
The Cunctator schreef:
On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@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 a spelling error should be marked with a footnote *instead* of being
fixed?
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 empty.[*]
Because the reader is not an idiot.
Eugene
[*] I've got the talk page header boxes and the wikiproject pages turned of in CSS as well. I wish that that would make red links of talk pages containing boxes only...
Absolutely. Btw, for what it's worth, I don't think Eugene is endorsing the current state of affairs - he's just describing it. And I am really annoyed by these talk templates - they are pointless cruft that few people ever read. (Who on earth is going to be civil just because a template told them to?) The only helpful templates are those which would apply only if there has already been discussion (e.g. don't use the talk page for discussing off-Wikipedia things), Creating a separate namespace for them might be a good idea - meta data about which page is under the purview of which projects and its history of deletions, etc. is helpful, but just shouldn't belong on the talk page. (Not to mention having a standardised format for this meta data would make it easier to automate the process of gathering meta data about articles.)
Johnleemk
On 6/30/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/30/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
The Cunctator schreef:
On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@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
a
spelling error should be marked with a footnote *instead* of being
fixed?
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 empty.[*]
Because the reader is not an idiot.
Eugene
[*] I've got the talk page header boxes and the wikiproject pages turned of in CSS as well. I wish that that would make red links of talk pages containing boxes only...
Absolutely. Btw, for what it's worth, I don't think Eugene is endorsing the current state of affairs - he's just describing it. And I am really annoyed by these talk templates - they are pointless cruft that few people ever read. (Who on earth is going to be civil just because a template told them to?) The only helpful templates are those which would apply only if there has already been discussion (e.g. don't use the talk page for discussing off-Wikipedia things), Creating a separate namespace for them might be a good idea - meta data about which page is under the purview of which projects and its history of deletions, etc. is helpful, but just shouldn't belong on the talk page. (Not to mention having a standardised format for this meta data would make it easier to automate the process of gathering meta data about articles.)
Johnleemk _______________________________________________
I like Kingboyk's suggestion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_using_WikiProject_talk_pag... (last section). Make the discussion tab a different colour if there are only pointless (definately POV here) templates on the discussion page.
Garion96
Could we not just enforce the "small" option for ALL talkpage banners? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_templates#Small_option
See also these 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:BannerShell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WikiProjectBannerShell
On 6/30/07, Garion96 garion96@gmail.com wrote:
I like Kingboyk's suggestion on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_using_WikiProject_talk_pag... Ditto.
Quiddity
What do these templates do that couldn't be done with categories? (And when are categories and other such metadata going to be separated from the article source code and given a real interface?)
On 6/30/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
Could we not just enforce the "small" option for ALL talkpage banners? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_templates#Small_option
I started a thread at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_templates#Small_option... in case anyone else wants to explore that idea further.
I think the "Small" option was/is a good solution, it just hasn't been ideally implemented yet.
Quiddity
I don't see the point in most cases. I mean, the majority of talk pages I've seen only have 1 banner. In cases of 2+ though, I think you're on to something...
User:Giggy
On 7/12/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/30/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
Could we not just enforce the "small" option for ALL talkpage banners? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_templates#Small_option
I started a thread at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_templates#Small_option... in case anyone else wants to explore that idea further.
I think the "Small" option was/is a good solution, it just hasn't been ideally implemented yet.
Quiddity
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/11/07, Giggy g1ggyman@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the point in most cases. I mean, the majority of talk pages I've seen only have 1 banner. In cases of 2+ though, I think you're on to something...
User:Giggy
Eh, try looking at articles on people. Usually a WP:BIO banner along with at least one content-related banner. I'm most familiar with Olympic athletes for instance: they tend to have WP:BIO, a banner for their sport, often a banner for their country, and sometimes the WP:OLYMPICS banner.
There is a {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} template that has a nice show/hide feature for multiple such tags. For instance, take a look at [[Talk:1996 Summer Olympics]], which has the Olympics banner as well as Georgia (US State) and Atlanta banners.
Of course, none of this addresses the bluelink/redlink for discussions for those for whom that was a much-liked feature (and I'll admit I was somewhat vexed when bluelink "discussion" tabs didn't have any actual, you know, discussion).
-- Jonel
The Cunctator 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 a spelling error should be marked with a footnote *instead* of being fixed?
How else would the reader know there is something wrong with the text?
Because the reader is not an idiot.
For some idiots it's important to have historical knowledge of the fact that the page at one time contained a spelling error. It's the only thing that stands between them and "Delete, nn." :-)
Ec
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
The Cunctator schreef:
Some groups[*attribution needed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words*] oppose these measures.
Can we PLEASE make a blanket ban on editorial footnotes in the middle of sentences?
No. It's important that a sentence without a citation is marked "citation needed", that a phrase containing weasel words is marked "contains weasel words", and that a word with a spelling error is marked "spelled wrong".
How else would the reader know there is something wrong with the text?
Whatever the justification (or lack thereof) for the other two, it seems to me that adding the tag "spelled wrong" takes a lot more effort than simply correcting the error.
Ec
--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
naïve. I use the 'who' tag often, as in:
Some groups[*attribution needed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words*]
oppose these measures.
It seems to me that one could simplify this tag to
"who?", as in:
Some groups[who?]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution oppose these measures.
Can we PLEASE make a blanket ban on editorial footnotes in the middle of sentences?
Seems like a minor stylistic preference. Some have determined that a blanket ban on any unsourced statements with weasel words, such as the following, will have far greater impact: * "Some groups" * "Some people" * "Some say" * "Some found" * "Some claim" * "should"
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
"Seems like a minor stylistic preference. Some have {{who}} determined that a blanket ban on any unsourced statements with weasel words, such as the following, will have far greater impact:"
Really though, I think the {{who}} in midsentence does help to illustrate exactly where the problem/weasel words are. Most of the time, "some argue", "others think" and the like with no sources or attribution are a thin cover for a personal editorial.
On 30/06/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"Seems like a minor stylistic preference. Some have {{who}} determined that a blanket ban on any unsourced statements with weasel words, such as the following, will have far greater impact:"
Really though, I think the {{who}} in midsentence does help to illustrate exactly where the problem/weasel words are. Most of the time, "some argue", "others think" and the like with no sources or attribution are a thin cover for a personal editorial.
Which is, as I understand it, the reason that [[WP:AWW]] exists in the first place.
On 30/06/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"Seems like a minor stylistic preference. Some have {{who}} determined that a blanket ban on any unsourced statements with weasel words, such as the following, will have far greater impact:"
Really though, I think the {{who}} in midsentence does help to illustrate exactly where the problem/weasel words are. Most of the time, "some argue", "others think" and the like with no sources or attribution are a thin cover for a personal editorial.
{{who}} is only useful when there is an inline citation already, and the cited resource isn't accessible.
If there isnt an inline citation, then adding {{fact}} is more useful.
If there is an inline citation with a URL provided, the person adding {{who}} could answer their own question.
I doubt that {{who}} should ever appear midsentence. If it cant go at the end of the sentence, it is probably a run-on sentence.
On 6/30/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Which is, as I understand it, the reason that [[WP:AWW]] exists in the first place.
I look forward to seeing {{ww}} appearing midsentence.
-- John
On 6/29/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/06/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"Seems like a minor stylistic preference. Some have {{who}} determined that a blanket ban on any unsourced statements with weasel words, such as the following, will have far greater impact:"
Really though, I think the {{who}} in midsentence does help to illustrate exactly where the problem/weasel words are. Most of the time, "some argue", "others think" and the like with no sources or attribution are a thin cover for a personal editorial.
Which is, as I understand it, the reason that [[WP:AWW]] exists in the first place.
Just edit the freaking sentences, already. I do adore the irony that Allen's sentence in support of the {{who}} tag used the "some have determined" construct.
The Cunctator wrote:
On 6/29/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/06/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"Seems like a minor stylistic preference. Some have {{who}} determined that a blanket ban on any unsourced statements with weasel words, such as the following, will have far greater impact:"
Really though, I think the {{who}} in midsentence does help to illustrate exactly where the problem/weasel words are. Most of the time, "some argue", "others think" and the like with no sources or attribution are a thin cover for a personal editorial.
Which is, as I understand it, the reason that [[WP:AWW]] exists in the first place.
Just edit the freaking sentences, already. I do adore the irony that Allen's sentence in support of the {{who}} tag used the "some have determined" construct.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sometimes, I don't -know- who said it. Sometimes, I can't find any indication that anyone at all said it, but it seems at least plausible and isn't anything nasty or potentially harmful, so I'd prefer to flag a problem rather than remove immediately. (If it's implausible or potentially harmful, of course, it just gets taken out with "Source it please.") So how specifically am I supposed to "just edit the freaking sentences" with anything but a tag? Take a wild guess as to who it was?
(In response to the other bit, the sentence I quoted with "some have determined" was said earlier in the discussion. I stuck the {{who}} tag in it when I quoted it because I found the irony amusing too.)
Todd Allen wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 6/29/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/06/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
"Seems like a minor stylistic preference. Some have {{who}} determined that a blanket ban on any unsourced statements with weasel words, such as the following, will have far greater impact:"
Really though, I think the {{who}} in midsentence does help to illustrate exactly where the problem/weasel words are. Most of the time, "some argue", "others think" and the like with no sources or attribution are a thin cover for a personal editorial.
Which is, as I understand it, the reason that [[WP:AWW]] exists in the first place.
Just edit the freaking sentences, already. I do adore the irony that Allen's sentence in support of the {{who}} tag used the "some have determined" construct.
Sometimes, I don't -know- who said it. Sometimes, I can't find any indication that anyone at all said it, but it seems at least plausible and isn't anything nasty or potentially harmful, so I'd prefer to flag a problem rather than remove immediately. (If it's implausible or potentially harmful, of course, it just gets taken out with "Source it please.") So how specifically am I supposed to "just edit the freaking sentences" with anything but a tag? Take a wild guess as to who it was?
(In response to the other bit, the sentence I quoted with "some have determined" was said earlier in the discussion. I stuck the {{who}} tag in it when I quoted it because I found the irony amusing too.)
Maybe some of these comments were simply made by Weasel on Wheels. :-)
Ec