Does it not drive anyone else up the wall the incessant templates jammed onto the top of our articles? Sure some of the articles have issues that readers as well as editors should be aware of, but it's really ridiculous having these Vogonic bureaucratic Wiki-speak instructions/jargon stamped before the article text for all and sundry to enjoy. Half the time the templates aren't even warranted, or at the least the issue is not important enough to demand anything other than a note on the talk page. It's far too easy for people just to slap on templates onto articles in a sort of wiki-process-allowed defacement of content.
I mean the trivia section warning for one thing. I consider myself firmly in the anti-trivia camp, and indeed I'd nearly support removing offending sections to talk pages as well when asking people to integrate the brainless factoids; but really, there's no need to give instructions on the situation to all our readers. It's just not that important! Templates in fact compound the problem by highlighting the trivia sections! It makes no sense!
As regards the templates that are somewhat necessary (don't use our second-hand info about hurricanes in your area, etc) can a specific area separate from the article content be used for the message? Something like how the fundraising message is displayed?
Zoney --
I don't think this going to change anytime soon, and in many situations template banners are very helpful.
The best way to efficiently suggest the redundancy of a template is to go and fix it yourself, if they piss you off that much. But expecting that everyone is capable (much less willing) to fix every problem they see themselves is foolishness, plain and simple.
On 10/7/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Does it not drive anyone else up the wall the incessant templates jammed onto the top of our articles? Sure some of the articles have issues that readers as well as editors should be aware of, but it's really ridiculous having these Vogonic bureaucratic Wiki-speak instructions/jargon stamped before the article text for all and sundry to enjoy. Half the time the templates aren't even warranted, or at the least the issue is not important enough to demand anything other than a note on the talk page. It's far too easy for people just to slap on templates onto articles in a sort of wiki-process-allowed defacement of content.
I mean the trivia section warning for one thing. I consider myself firmly in the anti-trivia camp, and indeed I'd nearly support removing offending sections to talk pages as well when asking people to integrate the brainless factoids; but really, there's no need to give instructions on the situation to all our readers. It's just not that important! Templates in fact compound the problem by highlighting the trivia sections! It makes no sense!
As regards the templates that are somewhat necessary (don't use our second-hand info about hurricanes in your area, etc) can a specific area separate from the article content be used for the message? Something like how the fundraising message is displayed?
Zoney
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 07/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this going to change anytime soon, and in many situations template banners are very helpful.
The best way to efficiently suggest the redundancy of a template is to go and fix it yourself, if they piss you off that much. But expecting that everyone is capable (much less willing) to fix every problem they see themselves is foolishness, plain and simple.
I'm not suggesting people are capable or willing to fix every problem they see (really, this negates the "so fix it" argument that even you yourself use). I do however think it is good for people to recognise even problems that aren't going to be solved anytime soon, and even discuss them. Indeed it's a lot better to have plenty of discussion before any action whatsoever is taken!
Zoney
Zoney wrote:
On 07/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this going to change anytime soon, and in many situations template banners are very helpful.
The best way to efficiently suggest the redundancy of a template is to go and fix it yourself, if they piss you off that much. But expecting that everyone is capable (much less willing) to fix every problem they see themselves is foolishness, plain and simple.
I'm not suggesting people are capable or willing to fix every problem they see (really, this negates the "so fix it" argument that even you yourself use). I do however think it is good for people to recognise even problems that aren't going to be solved anytime soon, and even discuss them. Indeed it's a lot better to have plenty of discussion before any action whatsoever is taken!
I often get the impression that some people actively work to discourage discussion, especially when discussion would be inconsistent with a quick fix. Ec
On 10/8/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I often get the impression that some people actively work to discourage discussion, especially when discussion would be inconsistent with a quick fix.
If by "inconsistent with a quick fix" you mean the discussion would be "not nearly as quick" rather than "likely to have a more positive result", I'd say go with the quick fix and discuss it later, if another human editor actually shows up.
—C.W.
Steven Walling wrote:
I don't think this going to change anytime soon, and in many situations template banners are very helpful.
A minority of cases.
The best way to efficiently suggest the redundancy of a template is to go and fix it yourself, if they piss you off that much. But expecting that everyone is capable (much less willing) to fix every problem they see themselves is foolishness, plain and simple.
An easier alternative is just to remove the template. If templates are added at a significantly faster rate than problems fixed it is a losing battle. If you don't know what you are talking about, how do you even know to add a template. If you do know what you are talking about, you may be the best person to fix the problem. Some templates may still be necessary, but they will represent something more than a templaters vicarious pleasure of generating work for others.
Ec
On 10/7/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I mean the trivia section warning for one thing. I consider myself firmly in the anti-trivia camp, and indeed I'd nearly support removing offending sections to talk pages as well when asking people to integrate the brainless factoids; but really, there's no need to give instructions on the situation to all our readers. It's just not that important! Templates in fact compound the problem by highlighting the trivia sections! It makes no sense!
Wholly agreed. Notices to editors, not readers, should be on the talk page in most cases.
-Matt
On 10/7/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Does it not drive anyone else up the wall the incessant templates jammed onto the top of our articles?
Well, the new color scheme sucks.
Sure some of the articles have issues that readers as well as editors should be aware of, but it's really ridiculous having these Vogonic bureaucratic Wiki-speak instructions/jargon stamped before the article text for all and sundry to enjoy.
...and hopefully act upon.
Half the time the templates aren't even warranted, or at the least the issue is not important enough to demand anything other than a note on the talk page.
Diminishing returns. Maybe the server folks could give us some numbers on how many (few) people actually read talk pages anymore.
It's far too easy for people just to slap on templates onto articles in a sort of wiki-process-allowed defacement of content.
{{fact}}!
I mean the trivia section warning for one thing. I consider myself firmly in the anti-trivia camp, and indeed I'd nearly support removing offending sections to talk pages as well when asking people to integrate the brainless factoids;
I don't have a problem with extra information, as long it's verifiable. How to arrange it is of secondary concern to me.
but really, there's no need to give instructions on the situation to all our readers. It's just not that important!
Naturally I agree. If I disliked trivia, I would skip to the next section when reading an article.
Templates in fact compound the problem by highlighting the trivia sections! It makes no sense!
This of course assumes that the trivia creates a problem. I'll use the less controversial example of spelling errors. The fact that they are automatically highlighted in my web browser delights me to no end. If there is a real problem to fix, it should be made more conspicuous, not less.
As regards the templates that are somewhat necessary (don't use our second-hand info about hurricanes in your area, etc) can a specific area separate from the article content be used for the message? Something like how the fundraising message is displayed?
Well, once again I disagree with you as per [1]. {{HurricaneWarning}} should have been deleted a long time ago, but it somehow survived TFD. Short of deletion I would welcome any attempt to make its appearance more subtle but it's protected for no apparent reason.
—C.W.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles
On 10/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote
Well, once again I disagree with you as per [1]. {{HurricaneWarning}} should have been deleted a long time ago, but it somehow survived TFD. Short of deletion I would welcome any attempt to make its appearance more subtle but it's protected for no apparent reason.
I can't believe that template exists. What's next, a warning on medical articles for people to call 911/999/whatever in case of a medical emergency?
On 10/7/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote
Well, once again I disagree with you as per [1]. {{HurricaneWarning}} should have been deleted a long time ago, but it somehow survived TFD. Short of deletion I would welcome any attempt to make its appearance more subtle but it's protected for no apparent reason.
I can't believe that template exists. What's next, a warning on medical articles for people to call 911/999/whatever in case of a medical emergency?
Oh, good grief, you really didn't suggest that did you? Tell the kids not to stuff beans up their noses....
I template the hell out of articles that are inappropriate content but won't be corrected. The x-ray crystallography article, which requires an expert, not a bunch of physicists and mathematicians, shouldn't be the general article on the topic, it's written essentially about x-ray crystallography of bio molecules, and it looks exactly like what it is: a compilation of disorganized insights into the field without a retaining substance, like an outline.
There are some articles that shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and if I don't have time to correct them, and no one else will either, then I'm going to at least warn the readers that the article is a piece of crap in various ways. That's what the templates do. In fact, one of the first times I read an article on Wikipedia it came with a warning.
KP
There s an extensive on -wiki discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_templates. Considering that the new templates have just been adopted after a reasonable period of open discussion, an attempt to change back will be interesting.
Personally, I would support making all templates yet smaller, and almost all less conspicuous, and moving most to the article talk page. Not everyone agrees.
On 10/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote
Well, once again I disagree with you as per [1]. {{HurricaneWarning}} should have been deleted a long time ago, but it somehow survived TFD. Short of deletion I would welcome any attempt to make its appearance more subtle but it's protected for no apparent reason.
I can't believe that template exists. What's next, a warning on medical articles for people to call 911/999/whatever in case of a medical emergency?
Oh, good grief, you really didn't suggest that did you? Tell the kids not to stuff beans up their noses....
I template the hell out of articles that are inappropriate content but won't be corrected. The x-ray crystallography article, which requires an expert, not a bunch of physicists and mathematicians, shouldn't be the general article on the topic, it's written essentially about x-ray crystallography of bio molecules, and it looks exactly like what it is: a compilation of disorganized insights into the field without a retaining substance, like an outline.
There are some articles that shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and if I don't have time to correct them, and no one else will either, then I'm going to at least warn the readers that the article is a piece of crap in various ways. That's what the templates do. In fact, one of the first times I read an article on Wikipedia it came with a warning.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
sorry--the link should have been Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes., which gives a summary and the extensive archives. I was apparently expressing my own view that they belong on the talk page.
On 10/7/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
There s an extensive on -wiki discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_templates. Considering that the new templates have just been adopted after a reasonable period of open discussion, an attempt to change back will be interesting.
Personally, I would support making all templates yet smaller, and almost all less conspicuous, and moving most to the article talk page. Not everyone agrees.
On 10/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote
Well, once again I disagree with you as per [1]. {{HurricaneWarning}} should have been deleted a long time ago, but it somehow survived TFD. Short of deletion I would welcome any attempt to make its appearance more subtle but it's protected for no apparent reason.
I can't believe that template exists. What's next, a warning on medical articles for people to call 911/999/whatever in case of a medical emergency?
Oh, good grief, you really didn't suggest that did you? Tell the kids not to stuff beans up their noses....
I template the hell out of articles that are inappropriate content but won't be corrected. The x-ray crystallography article, which requires an expert, not a bunch of physicists and mathematicians, shouldn't be the general article on the topic, it's written essentially about x-ray crystallography of bio molecules, and it looks exactly like what it is: a compilation of disorganized insights into the field without a retaining substance, like an outline.
There are some articles that shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and if I don't have time to correct them, and no one else will either, then I'm going to at least warn the readers that the article is a piece of crap in various ways. That's what the templates do. In fact, one of the first times I read an article on Wikipedia it came with a warning.
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On 08/10/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I template the hell out of articles that are inappropriate content but won't be corrected. The x-ray crystallography article, which requires an expert, not a bunch of physicists and mathematicians, shouldn't be the general article on the topic, it's written essentially about x-ray crystallography of bio molecules, and it looks exactly like what it is: a compilation of disorganized insights into the field without a retaining substance, like an outline.
You think templates will help how? Physicists and mathematicians are the closest you will get to experts. Chemists tend not to worry about the maths too much these days and biologists are no better (after all who needs the maths when the computer handles that side your job is to tell if what it is producing is halfway sane).
There are some articles that shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and if I don't have time to correct them, and no one else will either, then I'm going to at least warn the readers that the article is a piece of crap in various ways. That's what the templates do. In fact, one of the first times I read an article on Wikipedia it came with a warning.
KP
NPOV the various fact dispute. maybe. {{expert}} I think not.
On 10/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/10/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I template the hell out of articles that are inappropriate content but won't be corrected. The x-ray crystallography article, which requires an expert, not a bunch of physicists and mathematicians, shouldn't be the general article on the topic, it's written essentially about x-ray crystallography of bio molecules, and it looks exactly like what it is: a compilation of disorganized insights into the field without a retaining substance, like an outline.
You think templates will help how? Physicists and mathematicians are the closest you will get to experts. Chemists tend not to worry about the maths too much these days and biologists are no better (after all who needs the maths when the computer handles that side your job is to tell if what it is producing is halfway sane).
No, this isn't true, biologists need the math now more than ever. It's nice to think that you can do math without understanding it, but I do love being asked by PhDs to explain something to them because they don't understand it because they don't have the math background. I work in a technical field, and I produce results faster, more accurately, and in a more interesting fashion than the other technicians I work with who are clueless and limited by their math. And better results than the researchers who are also clueless and limited by their relatively low level math skills. It will be nice for me job wise if people keep thinking like you, but the literature we go through in discussions every day makes it absolutley clear that scientists and technicians need more math not less, and departments are upping the basic requirements for math. Grad students used to be able to get in without the math background, making it up in their first year or so--not the same case now.
The templates are to warn readers not to trust the content of the article for specific reasons.
There are some articles that shouldn't be on Wikipedia, and if I don't have time to correct them, and no one else will either, then I'm going to at least warn the readers that the article is a piece of crap in various ways. That's what the templates do. In fact, one of the first times I read an article on Wikipedia it came with a warning.
KP
NPOV the various fact dispute. maybe. {{expert}} I think not.
-- geni
I don't know what you're saying with this last sentence.
KP
On 08/10/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
No, this isn't true, biologists need the math now more than ever.
It is not possible for an unassisted human to do anything useful with the X ray diffraction pattern of a protein (it is possible for a chemical of greater simplicity but there is little point in doing so.
It's nice to think that you can do math without understanding it,
The computer does the math. The job of the human is to work out which bits of the result it spits out are sane. While some knowledge of the basic principles may come in handy a completely knowledge of the relevant areas of chemistry is somewhat more useful
but I do love being asked by PhDs to explain something to them because they don't understand it because they don't have the math background. I work in a technical field, and I produce results faster, more accurately, and in a more interesting fashion than the other technicians I work with who are clueless and limited by their math. And better results than the researchers who are also clueless and limited by their relatively low level math skills. It will be nice for me job wise if people keep thinking like you, but the literature we go through in discussions every day makes it absolutley clear that scientists and technicians need more math not less, and departments are upping the basic requirements for math. Grad students used to be able to get in without the math background, making it up in their first year or so--not the same case now.
How many chemists do you think can do Fourier transforms? a handful maybe? Now how many can do extremely useful stuff with NMRs and FT-IRs?
The templates are to warn readers not to trust the content of the article for specific reasons.
Not usefully.
I don't know what you're saying with this last sentence.
NPOV and fact tags warn readers wikify and {{Expert}} do not.
On 10/7/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/10/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
No, this isn't true, biologists need the math now more than ever.
It is not possible for an unassisted human to do anything useful with the X ray diffraction pattern of a protein (it is possible for a chemical of greater simplicity but there is little point in doing so.
It's nice to think that you can do math without understanding it,
The computer does the math. The job of the human is to work out which bits of the result it spits out are sane. While some knowledge of the basic principles may come in handy a completely knowledge of the relevant areas of chemistry is somewhat more useful
but I do love being asked by PhDs to explain something to them because they don't understand it because they don't have the math background. I work in a technical field, and I produce results faster, more accurately, and in a more interesting fashion than the other technicians I work with who are clueless and limited by their math. And better results than the researchers who are also clueless and limited by their relatively low level math skills. It will be nice for me job wise if people keep thinking like you, but the literature we go through in discussions every day makes it absolutley clear that scientists and technicians need more math not less, and departments are upping the basic requirements for math. Grad students used to be able to get in without the math background, making it up in their first year or so--not the same case now.
How many chemists do you think can do Fourier transforms? a handful maybe? Now how many can do extremely useful stuff with NMRs and FT-IRs?
The templates are to warn readers not to trust the content of the article for specific reasons.
Not usefully.
I don't know what you're saying with this last sentence.
NPOV and fact tags warn readers wikify and {{Expert}} do not.
-- geni
It's amazing there is a world in chemistry outside of x-ray diffraction and fourier transforms and it is peopled by working chemists who do math. And, although our wiki article is not clue to it, x-ray diffraction is not wholey limited to chemists. And, again, there are many more interesting things about what are going on with x-rays that have all sorts of math involved in them besides fourier transforms. But it's hard to tell that from Wikipedia's limited and insistent viewpoint that math is either done by computers or advanced theoretical mathematicians and no one in between.
I'll pass on that analysis. I only work in the world I work in. Where people with lesser math skills find it detrimental.
KP
On 08/10/2007, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
It's amazing there is a world in chemistry outside of x-ray diffraction and fourier transforms
But we were talking about x-ray diffraction. The maths and physics guys you object to are your experts.
and it is peopled by working chemists who do math. And, although our wiki article is not clue to it, x-ray diffraction is not wholey limited to chemists.
First you object to "a bunch of physicists and mathematicians" apparently writing the thing then of it being too biological now you complain it is limited to chemists.
On 10/7/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Does it not drive anyone else up the wall the incessant templates jammed onto the top of our articles? Sure some of the articles have issues that readers as well as editors should be aware of, but it's really ridiculous having these Vogonic bureaucratic Wiki-speak instructions/jargon stamped before the article text for all and sundry to enjoy. Half the time the templates aren't even warranted, or at the least the issue is not important enough to demand anything other than a note on the talk page. It's far too easy for people just to slap on templates onto articles in a sort of wiki-process-allowed defacement of content.
I mean the trivia section warning for one thing. I consider myself firmly in the anti-trivia camp, and indeed I'd nearly support removing offending sections to talk pages as well when asking people to integrate the brainless factoids; but really, there's no need to give instructions on the situation to all our readers. It's just not that important! Templates in fact compound the problem by highlighting the trivia sections! It makes no sense!
As regards the templates that are somewhat necessary (don't use our second-hand info about hurricanes in your area, etc) can a specific area separate from the article content be used for the message? Something like how the fundraising message is displayed?
Zoney
It does in fact drive me up the wall, I will heartily agree. But it bugs me for entirely different reasons.
You old-timers, cast your minds back to 2003/2004 (everyone who joined after that, close your eyes and try to fake it).
You are reading an interesting or important article when something suddenly strikes you as odd and untoward. Let's stipulate that you read the entire article and you are yet unsatisfied. Being a good Wikipedian, you consider correcting this apparent error - how could the Battle of New Orleans have been the last battle of the War of 1812 when the treaty was signed long before it took place? shall be your query, say. And being a good Wikipedian, you happened to notice that the talk page was blue.
Now let's just pause a second. These days, why would anyone click on the talk page link? Essentially every talk page has been created just because of bots going around adding assessment tags and project banners and all that bric-a-brac. People are slowly being trained to ignore talk pages - the signal to noise ratio used to be 1/0, as talk pages *always* had something a human had written. It might not be relevant to your current question, it might be on an entirely different issue (the exact number of casaulties as this old NY Times copy handed down in my family claims 2 less than does this Encyclopedia Britannica article, &etc..), but quite often it was quite germane (Yo peeps leave the date alone, remember the crazy-ass communication delays back then) or at least interesting.
I don't think there's really anyway to solve this. Nobody is really advocating putting that kind of metadata into the article, which would be a herculean and sisyphean task; nobody is seriously talking about associating a second page with articles (one for discussion and the other for metadata).
But I think in a certain modest way there is a solution. Just display the talk automatically. At the bottom is a good place. Think about it: if it's some worthless banners and templates, you simply stop reading/scrolling-down at the categories - but if there is a lot left, then you continue reading and merely skip over the templates. The additional load time is negligible, it doesn't mess anything up, etc. And it's a relatively simple addition to one's monobook.js: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Requests#Automatically_view_talk_page_discussion_while_looking_at_article. I'm not suggesting it be put into the site-wide file, but I think it could be a step towards a programmatic solution for annoyed editors.
-- gwern
Gwern Branwen wrote:
Now let's just pause a second. These days, why would anyone click on the talk page link? Essentially every talk page has been created just because of bots going around adding assessment tags and project banners and all that bric-a-brac. People are slowly being trained to ignore talk pages - the signal to noise ratio used to be 1/0, as talk pages *always* had something a human had written.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_using_WikiProject_talk_page_tem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jajaja
SPUI wrote:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
Now let's just pause a second. These days, why would anyone click on the talk page link? Essentially every talk page has been created just because of bots going around adding assessment tags and project banners and all that bric-a-brac. People are slowly being trained to ignore talk pages - the signal to noise ratio used to be 1/0, as talk pages *always* had something a human had written.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_using_WikiProject_talk_page_tem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jajaja
Of those [[Jajaja]] redirects to [[Laughter]], and that has a big ugly template at the top with three vague complaints, including one about "tone or style". Such a highly subjective complaint could stay there for a long time. Even saying that it is missing citations is pointless when it fails to show where they are needed.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
SPUI wrote:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
Now let's just pause a second. These days, why would anyone click on the talk page link? Essentially every talk page has been created just because of bots going around adding assessment tags and project banners and all that bric-a-brac. People are slowly being trained to ignore talk pages - the signal to noise ratio used to be 1/0, as talk pages *always* had something a human had written.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_using_WikiProject_talk_page_tem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jajaja
Of those [[Jajaja]] redirects to [[Laughter]], and that has a big ugly template at the top with three vague complaints, including one about "tone or style". Such a highly subjective complaint could stay there for a long time. Even saying that it is missing citations is pointless when it fails to show where they are needed.
It was an oblique way of saying "I told you so".
On 08/10/2007, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
You old-timers, cast your minds back to 2003/2004 (everyone who joined after that, close your eyes and try to fake it).
You are reading an interesting or important article when something suddenly strikes you as odd and untoward. Let's stipulate that you read the entire article and you are yet unsatisfied. Being a good Wikipedian, you consider correcting this apparent error - how could the Battle of New Orleans have been the last battle of the War of 1812 when the treaty was signed long before it took place? shall be your query, say. And being a good Wikipedian, you happened to notice that the talk page was blue.
Now let's just pause a second. These days, why would anyone click on the talk page link? Essentially every talk page has been created just because of bots going around adding assessment tags and project banners and all that bric-a-brac. People are slowly being trained to ignore talk pages - the signal to noise ratio used to be 1/0, as talk pages *always* had something a human had written. It might not be relevant to your current question, it might be on an entirely different issue (the exact number of casaulties as this old NY Times copy handed down in my family claims 2 less than does this Encyclopedia Britannica article, &etc..), but quite often it was quite germane (Yo peeps leave the date alone, remember the crazy-ass communication delays back then) or at least interesting.
I do think it'd be nice if the talk link showed up a different colour or something for a recent post by an actual real human rather than a bot. Actually many talk messages I've left recently haven't gotten responses, even semi-controversial subjects on reasonably major topics. I really think that back in 2004 they would have.
Perhaps I'm just getting too old and grouchy.
Of course, the truth is that talk pages have always been inefficient and cumbersome, and really rather pathetic for disputes etc. However, it's not like I have a suggestion for an alternative, and I doubt anyone else has! I mean, in the wider world people are havign to put up with the social difficulties arising from communication by email, SMS text message, etc. All in all, a pretty pathetic way to communicate and express ones views and emotions.
Zoney
On 08/10/2007, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, the truth is that talk pages have always been inefficient and cumbersome, and really rather pathetic for disputes etc. However, it's not like I have a suggestion for an alternative, and I doubt anyone else has!
There's various forum extensions for MediaWiki extant and in the works, so actually they do ;-) Many of these would arguably do a better job than present talk pages.
- d.
Zoney wrote:
I do think it'd be nice if the talk link showed up a different colour or something for a recent post by an actual real human rather than a bot.
That could be helpful as a short term solution.
Actually many talk messages I've left recently haven't gotten responses, even semi-controversial subjects on reasonably major topics. I really think that back in 2004 they would have.
Certainly it would have been more likely then. Stonewalling is a form of argument, so too is "silence is consent".
Perhaps I'm just getting too old and grouchy.
Not at all. It's a very serious problem.
Of course, the truth is that talk pages have always been inefficient and cumbersome, and really rather pathetic for disputes etc. However, it's not like I have a suggestion for an alternative, and I doubt anyone else has! I mean, in the wider world people are havign to put up with the social difficulties arising from communication by email, SMS text message, etc. All in all, a pretty pathetic way to communicate and express ones views and emotions.
They are indeed inefficient. Information overload makes it easier to ignore a lot of pure nonsense.
Ec
On 10/8/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Certainly it would have been more likely then. Stonewalling is a form of argument, so too is "silence is consent".
I like time limits. As in, "If there are no complaints I will change it in one week"
That seems to work pretty well :D Of course when you actually want to have a discussion about what it should be, when you aren't sure, not so much.
cohesion wrote:
On 10/8/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Certainly it would have been more likely then. Stonewalling is a form of argument, so too is "silence is consent".
I like time limits. As in, "If there are no complaints I will change it in one week"
That's a reasonable variation of "silence is consent."
That seems to work pretty well :D Of course when you actually want to have a discussion about what it should be, when you aren't sure, not so much.
Yes. Sometimes it takes a crisis of aggression to get any kind of response, but that as often implies being associated with a particular position in a debate, and defending positions that one has never really taken. What do you do to just get people to sit back and reflect.
Ec
On 2007.10.08 16:06:43 +0100, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com scribbled 49 lines:
I do think it'd be nice if the talk link showed up a different colour or something for a recent post by an actual real human rather than a bot. Actually many talk messages I've left recently haven't gotten responses, even semi-controversial subjects on reasonably major topics. I really think that back in 2004 they would have.
Perhaps I speak from ignorance but this seems like it could be done easily.
Perhaps I'm just getting too old and grouchy.
Grouchiness is par for the course. Imagine how grouchy longtime Usenetters got during the worst of the Eternal September.
Of course, the truth is that talk pages have always been inefficient and cumbersome, and really rather pathetic for disputes etc. However, it's not like I have a suggestion for an alternative, and I doubt anyone else has! I mean, in the wider world people are havign to put up with the social difficulties arising from communication by email, SMS text message, etc. All in all, a pretty pathetic way to communicate and express ones views and emotions.
Zoney
This is actually a good example of my point in the other email, that En is resistant to large-scale technical change even when it improves over the old creaky way we've been using. There have been a number of extensions, proposed and otherwise, like LiquidThreads http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:LiquidThreads which would be a considerable improvement over the status quo, and yet they all keep stagnating and dying and never achieving any sort of 'mainstream' success if you follow me.
You can argue that the programmers were incompetent or lacked gumption or were producing a flawed product; but all of them? Seems a little unlikely.
"Once is coincidence, twice is chance - three times is enemy action."
-- gwern Enforcers RSO ULF GIGN jaws rs9512c SAW Xu package Chicago
Gwern Branwen wrote:
You old-timers, cast your minds back to 2003/2004 (everyone who joined after that, close your eyes and try to fake it).
You are reading an interesting or important article when something suddenly strikes you as odd and untoward. Let's stipulate that you read the entire article and you are yet unsatisfied. Being a good Wikipedian, you consider correcting this apparent error - how could the Battle of New Orleans have been the last battle of the War of 1812 when the treaty was signed long before it took place? shall be your query, say. And being a good Wikipedian, you happened to notice that the talk page was blue.
Don't you mean that the link to the talk page is blue? For me the talk page itself is still yellow.
Now let's just pause a second. These days, why would anyone click on the talk page link? Essentially every talk page has been created just because of bots going around adding assessment tags and project banners and all that bric-a-brac. People are slowly being trained to ignore talk pages - the signal to noise ratio used to be 1/0, as talk pages *always* had something a human had written. It might not be relevant to your current question, it might be on an entirely different issue (the exact number of casaulties as this old NY Times copy handed down in my family claims 2 less than does this Encyclopedia Britannica article, &etc..), but quite often it was quite germane (Yo peeps leave the date alone, remember the crazy-ass communication delays back then) or at least interesting.
This is a really great example of where the effects of the techy side have had a strongly destructive effect on the social side. The key effect is that these garbage templates discourage people from taking their edit wars to the talk page. Problems with any subtlety at all are converted to simple black/white or yes/no arguments We need to remember that talk pages were there from the beginning to provide an opportunity to work out problems.
I don't think there's really anyway to solve this. Nobody is really advocating putting that kind of metadata into the article, which would be a herculean and sisyphean task; nobody is seriously talking about associating a second page with articles (one for discussion and the other for metadata).
It does little good to belittle the idea of a separate metadata page as not serious when you don't even give arguemnts about why it's such a bad idea.
But I think in a certain modest way there is a solution. Just display the talk automatically. At the bottom is a good place. Think about it: if it's some worthless banners and templates, you simply stop reading/scrolling-down at the categories - but if there is a lot left, then you continue reading and merely skip over the templates. The additional load time is negligible, it doesn't mess anything up, etc. And it's a relatively simple addition to one's monobook.js: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Requests#Automatically_view_talk_page_discussion_while_looking_at_article. I'm not suggesting it be put into the site-wide file, but I think it could be a step towards a programmatic solution for annoyed editors.
Not everybody wants to see the talk page, or even to load such a long page. We already try to keep the article sizes down for the benefit of people with slow browsers. An active talk page can be very, very long, and can even have many archive pages. This idea is not much different from sticking the metadata on the article page itself.
If the idea had any sort of usefulness it would need to be opt-in, because we can't expect everybody to be able to make sense of monobook.js. The ones who really need to use the talk page are not the high-tech types that understand monobook.js; they are those editors who may understand and are familiar with content while being mystified with anything more complicated than the most basic wiki syntax.
Ec
On 2007.10.08 12:17:52 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net scribbled 70 lines:
Gwern Branwen wrote:
You old-timers, cast your minds back to 2003/2004 (everyone who joined after that, close your eyes and try to fake it).
You are reading an interesting or important article when something suddenly strikes you as odd and untoward. Let's stipulate that you read the entire article and you are yet unsatisfied. Being a good Wikipedian, you consider correcting this apparent error - how could the Battle of New Orleans have been the last battle of the War of 1812 when the treaty was signed long before it took place? shall be your query, say. And being a good Wikipedian, you happened to notice that the talk page was blue.
Don't you mean that the link to the talk page is blue? For me the talk page itself is still yellow.
Yes, that's what I meant.
Now let's just pause a second. These days, why would anyone click on the talk page link? Essentially every talk page has been created just because of bots going around adding assessment tags and project banners and all that bric-a-brac. People are slowly being trained to ignore talk pages - the signal to noise ratio used to be 1/0, as talk pages *always* had something a human had written. It might not be relevant to your current question, it might be on an entirely different issue (the exact number of casaulties as this old NY Times copy handed down in my family claims 2 less than does this Encyclopedia Britannica article, &etc..), but quite often it was quite germane (Yo peeps leave the date alone, remember the crazy-ass communication delays back then) or at least interesting.
This is a really great example of where the effects of the techy side have had a strongly destructive effect on the social side. The key effect is that these garbage templates discourage people from taking their edit wars to the talk page. Problems with any subtlety at all are converted to simple black/white or yes/no arguments We need to remember that talk pages were there from the beginning to provide an opportunity to work out problems.
Absolutely. "To technology! the cause of - and solution to - all of life's problems."
I don't think there's really anyway to solve this. Nobody is really advocating putting that kind of metadata into the article, which would be a herculean and sisyphean task; nobody is seriously talking about associating a second page with articles (one for discussion and the other for metadata).
It does little good to belittle the idea of a separate metadata page as not serious when you don't even give arguemnts about why it's such a bad idea.
It's not necessarily a bad idea, it's just that if we're going to discuss changes to ameliorate this situation, let's focus on ones which actually have a chance of getting implement. It's a fact of life here at En that large-scale technical changes, however awesome they may be, usually don't happen and if they do it takes *forever* (because of many factors ranging from inertia to not wanting to clean up the ensuing mess to various developer issues to cruft, etc. etc.). This is true even for really really important things like SUl, or - actually, this might be going a little bit too far back here, but does anyone else remember Bug 550? That was an incredibly annoying limitation which took years to change.
Anyway, the essential point is that user-run bots and scripts got us into this mess and they seem to represent the most realistic way out.
But I think in a certain modest way there is a solution. Just display the talk automatically. At the bottom is a good place. Think about it: if it's some worthless banners and templates, you simply stop reading/scrolling-down at the categories - but if there is a lot left, then you continue reading and merely skip over the templates. The additional load time is negligible, it doesn't mess anything up, etc. And it's a relatively simple addition to one's monobook.js: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Requests#Automatically_view_talk_page_discussion_while_looking_at_article. I'm not suggesting it be put into the site-wide file, but I think it could be a step towards a programmatic solution for annoyed editors.
Not everybody wants to see the talk page, or even to load such a long page. We already try to keep the article sizes down for the benefit of people with slow browsers. An active talk page can be very, very long, and can even have many archive pages. This idea is not much different from sticking the metadata on the article page itself.
Well, I think browsers would usually begin rendering the frame containing the talk page after the article proper.
If the idea had any sort of usefulness it would need to be opt-in, because we can't expect everybody to be able to make sense of monobook.js. The ones who really need to use the talk page are not the high-tech types that understand monobook.js; they are those editors who may understand and are familiar with content while being mystified with anything more complicated than the most basic wiki syntax.
Ec
I'm not saying it shouldn't be opt-in - 'I'm not suggesting it be put into the site-wide file...' - but I think a more advanced version of this (or at least *something* that would either recolor the talk link when it's all bots, or transclude it if bots, or... really there are a lot of solutions here) would be good to have generally available to the community. For example, it's an old and perennial proposal to give rollback to non-admin editors, but it never has flown and never will out of sheer inertia even if consensus is for it - but the people who need rollback while not an administrator now have nice opt-in scripts like the TWINKLE stuff which are almost as good as real rollback.
-- gwern Enforcers RSO ULF GIGN jaws rs9512c SAW Xu package Chicago
Gwern Branwen wrote:
On 2007.10.08 12:17:52 -0700, Ray Saintonge scribbled 70 lines:
Gwern Branwen wrote
I don't think there's really anyway to solve this. Nobody is really advocating putting that kind of metadata into the article, which would be a herculean and sisyphean task; nobody is seriously talking about associating a second page with articles (one for discussion and the other for metadata)
It does little good to belittle the idea of a separate metadata page as not serious when you don't even give arguemnts about why it's such a bad idea.
It's not necessarily a bad idea, it's just that if we're going to discuss changes to ameliorate this situation, let's focus on ones which actually have a chance of getting implement. It's a fact of life here at En that large-scale technical changes, however awesome they may be, usually don't happen and if they do it takes *forever* (because of many factors ranging from inertia to not wanting to clean up the ensuing mess to various developer issues to cruft, etc. etc.). This is true even for really really important things like SUl, or - actually, this might be going a little bit too far back here, but does anyone else remember Bug 550? That was an incredibly annoying limitation which took years to change.
Anyway, the essential point is that user-run bots and scripts got us into this mess and they seem to represent the most realistic way out.
That's always a major limitation. Bug 550 doesn't ring a bell, but it would be easy for a Bug number to pass me by. The SUI problem remains there, as does the development of an internal search function that doesn't suck, and as do others. We certainly do not lack technical talent. It's also important that maintenance issues have priority on the developers time. It appears that it's the decision making process that is in paralysis; that makes it easier to use short-sighted policy workarounds.
But I think in a certain modest way there is a solution. Just display the talk automatically. At the bottom is a good place. Think about it: if it's some worthless banners and templates, you simply stop reading/scrolling-down at the categories - but if there is a lot left, then you continue reading and merely skip over the templates. The additional load time is negligible, it doesn't mess anything up, etc. And it's a relatively simple addition to one's monobook.js: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Requests#Automatically_view_talk_page_discussion_while_looking_at_article. I'm not suggesting it be put into the site-wide file, but I think it could be a step towards a programmatic solution for annoyed editors.
Not everybody wants to see the talk page, or even to load such a long page. We already try to keep the article sizes down for the benefit of people with slow browsers. An active talk page can be very, very long, and can even have many archive pages. This idea is not much different from sticking the metadata on the article page itself.
Well, I think browsers would usually begin rendering the frame containing the talk page after the article proper.
.Some old browsers tend to be unresponsive even to such basic actions as scrolling until the whole file is loaded.
If the idea had any sort of usefulness it would need to be opt-in, because we can't expect everybody to be able to make sense of monobook.js. The ones who really need to use the talk page are not the high-tech types that understand monobook.js; they are those editors who may understand and are familiar with content while being mystified with anything more complicated than the most basic wiki syntax.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be opt-in - 'I'm not suggesting it be put into the site-wide file...' - but I think a more advanced version of this (or at least *something* that would either recolor the talk link when it's all bots, or transclude it if bots, or... really there are a lot of solutions here) would be good to have generally available to the community.
Intuitively, something like this seems much easier for segregating bots and templates, or we already create archives for long talk pages. Could a metapage be treated as a kind of special archive.
For example, it's an old and perennial proposal to give rollback to non-admin editors, but it never has flown and never will out of sheer inertia even if consensus is for it - but the people who need rollback while not an administrator now have nice opt-in scripts like the TWINKLE stuff which are almost as good as real rollback.
Inertia remains a human problem. Technical solutions can be subject to the same kind of ownership and protection problems as the articles themselves. Most of us can have a basic (if erroneous) understanding of the issues in a political debate, but that is not the case with technical issues.
Ec
On 09/10/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
That's always a major limitation. Bug 550 doesn't ring a bell, but it would be easy for a Bug number to pass me by.
550 was a major development to the blocking system - the ability to block "anonymous users only from this IP", as I recall, which effectively meant we no longer had to block most registered users coming through AOL on a semi-random basis.
Honestly, I think the only real way to avoid these templates and still get the message across that there is something wrong, is to repurpose the templates so that the message is displayed on the talk page, that way editors still know to fix what needs fixing and the article, to the reader-population, won't be bothered by the overly annoying use of the boxes. Repurposing the templates is something I would support for the majority of the templates.
Honestly, why do we need a big template on the front of an article anyways? Doesn't discussion about how the article should improve in quality and maintain a more neutral point of view take place on the talk page to begin with? Plastering these articles with obsessive templates like {{current}}, {{npov}}, {{wikify}}, etc. are just useless all around for any reader of the website to see.
Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote: Does it not drive anyone else up the wall the incessant templates jammed onto the top of our articles? Sure some of the articles have issues that readers as well as editors should be aware of, but it's really ridiculous having these Vogonic bureaucratic Wiki-speak instructions/jargon stamped before the article text for all and sundry to enjoy. Half the time the templates aren't even warranted, or at the least the issue is not important enough to demand anything other than a note on the talk page. It's far too easy for people just to slap on templates onto articles in a sort of wiki-process-allowed defacement of content.
I mean the trivia section warning for one thing. I consider myself firmly in the anti-trivia camp, and indeed I'd nearly support removing offending sections to talk pages as well when asking people to integrate the brainless factoids; but really, there's no need to give instructions on the situation to all our readers. It's just not that important! Templates in fact compound the problem by highlighting the trivia sections! It makes no sense!
As regards the templates that are somewhat necessary (don't use our second-hand info about hurricanes in your area, etc) can a specific area separate from the article content be used for the message? Something like how the fundraising message is displayed?
Zoney -- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
On 10/8/07, Moe Epsilon moe_epsilon@yahoo.com wrote:
Honestly, I think the only real way to avoid these templates and still get the message across that there is something wrong, is to repurpose the templates so that the message is displayed on the talk page, that way editors still know to fix what needs fixing and the article, to the reader-population, won't be bothered by the overly annoying use of the boxes. Repurposing the templates is something I would support for the majority of the templates.
Honestly, why do we need a big template on the front of an article anyways? Doesn't discussion about how the article should improve in quality and maintain a more neutral point of view take place on the talk page to begin with? Plastering these articles with obsessive templates like {{current}}, {{npov}}, {{wikify}}, etc. are just useless all around for any reader of the website to see.
Of those templates you mention, {{current}} is explicitly meant for readers. {{NPOV}} is applicable to both readers and editors; {{wikify}} is applicable for editors.
There are arguments for maintaining the present system - it makes it clear that we're aware the article is not up to mark, and may let people know that they too can edit the article. I wouldn't be opposed to sticking most templates elsewhere, however.
Johnleemk
I don't mind the new design, not great, but not bad either. An improvement I think.
What I think the real issue here is though, are templates that don't serve the reader. Nothing should be on the top of the page that we don't need our *readers* seeing. The fact that an article has a trivia section, or has too many inbound disambiguation links etc is important only for housekeeping reasons.
If someone is willing to cleanup trivia sections, they are probably very well aware of how the category system works.
If something is so bad we do want to have a disclaimer for readers that's fine (npov, verifiability, etc) but for some things I agree, it's just creep.
Nominate them for deletion, that's what that process is there for. :D
cohesion wrote:
What I think the real issue here is though, are templates that don't serve the reader. Nothing should be on the top of the page that we don't need our *readers* seeing. The fact that an article has a trivia section, or has too many inbound disambiguation links etc is important only for housekeeping reasons.
It's even worse when these tags begin to appear on the printable version.
Ec
On 10/7/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/8/07, Moe Epsilon moe_epsilon@yahoo.com wrote:
Honestly, I think the only real way to avoid these templates and still get the message across that there is something wrong, is to repurpose the templates so that the message is displayed on the talk page, that way editors still know to fix what needs fixing and the article, to the reader-population, won't be bothered by the overly annoying use of the boxes. Repurposing the templates is something I would support for the majority of the templates.
Honestly, why do we need a big template on the front of an article anyways? Doesn't discussion about how the article should improve in quality and maintain a more neutral point of view take place on the talk page to begin with? Plastering these articles with obsessive templates like {{current}}, {{npov}}, {{wikify}}, etc. are just useless all around for any reader of the website to see.
Of those templates you mention, {{current}} is explicitly meant for readers. {{NPOV}} is applicable to both readers and editors; {{wikify}} is applicable for editors.
There are arguments for maintaining the present system - it makes it clear that we're aware the article is not up to mark, and may let people know that they too can edit the article. I wouldn't be opposed to sticking most templates elsewhere, however.
Johnleemk
Yes, talk page is the proper place for obvious editorial templates, like Wikify.
KP
On 10/7/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
There are arguments for maintaining the present system - it makes it clear that we're aware the article is not up to mark, and may let people know that they too can edit the article.
Exactly. The templates can help convert readers into editors.
I started editing in 2005 because I saw a {{wikify}} tag (or something similar). I thought, "I can do that", and did.
They also help remind all the readers that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. It may even be the first clue they get as to how Wikipedia works - I'd guess most of our readers are only familiar with the site as "that place that always appears near the top of google's results". Anything that increases the depth of their understanding of the project, warts and all, is a good thing.
As for the look of them, see a comparison screenshot of before/after: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia_-_comparison_of_template_standa... I personally dislike the cartoonish icons and their large size. However, I think the intuitive colouring and consistent design of the boxes is a vast improvement.
Quiddity
On 10/7/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
As for the look of them,
see also http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:GP1 (and the 2 linked .pdf files) wherein they discuss Wikipedia's visual identity, and "a redesign of the default website interface". (ie. addressing that Mediawiki uses monobook by default, in all the non-Wikimedia sites, a consistent point of confusion.) This will surely have far-reaching implications, possibly including the aesthetic design of things like the maintenance templates. (?)
Quiddity
On 10/8/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
As for the look of them, see a comparison screenshot of before/after: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia_-_comparison_of_template_standa... I personally dislike the cartoonish icons and their large size. However, I think the intuitive colouring and consistent design of the boxes is a vast improvement.
I, for one, miss being able to easily tell them apart at a quick glance. It wasn't until this "vast improvement" that I realized how much I actually relied more on the color scheme and the icon, rather than the text itself (which, on many of the templates, has been rephrased so many times I would have difficulty recognizing it anyway).
So now I find myself just clicking on the "edit" link and then looking at the list of "pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" (down at the bottom) while I'm editing something so I don't forget anything that might need to be dealt with.
—C.W.
On 10/9/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/8/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
As for the look of them, see a comparison screenshot of before/after: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia_-_comparison_of_template_standa... I personally dislike the cartoonish icons and their large size. However, I think the intuitive colouring and consistent design of the boxes is a vast improvement.
I, for one, miss being able to easily tell them apart at a quick glance. It wasn't until this "vast improvement" that I realized how much I actually relied more on the color scheme and the icon, rather than the text itself (which, on many of the templates, has been rephrased so many times I would have difficulty recognizing it anyway).
So now I find myself just clicking on the "edit" link and then looking at the list of "pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" (down at the bottom) while I'm editing something so I don't forget anything that might need to be dealt with.
Meant to add that this is because the names of the templates are more recognizable to me than their visual output when used on the page. :)
—C.W.
On 10/7/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Of those templates you mention, {{current}} is explicitly meant for readers. {{NPOV}} is applicable to both readers and editors; {{wikify}} is applicable for editors.
There are arguments for maintaining the present system - it makes it clear that we're aware the article is not up to mark, and may let people know that they too can edit the article...
Exactly. We want to encourage as many readers as possible to become editors, so I don't see much helpfulness in attempting to group certain templates according to their supposed applicability to one audience or another.
—C.W.
On 10/7/07, Moe Epsilon moe_epsilon@yahoo.com wrote:
Honestly, I think the only real way to avoid these templates and still get the message across that there is something wrong, is to repurpose the templates so that the message is displayed on the talk page, that way editors still know to fix what needs fixing and the article, to the reader-population, won't be bothered by the overly annoying use of the boxes. Repurposing the templates is something I would support for the majority of the templates.
Honestly, why do we need a big template on the front of an article anyways? Doesn't discussion about how the article should improve in quality and maintain a more neutral point of view take place on the talk page to begin with? Plastering these articles with obsessive templates like {{current}}, {{npov}}, {{wikify}}, etc. are just useless all around for any reader of the website to see.
We need a big template on the front of the article because it's a piece of crap. I didn't even know Wikipedia had talk pages for a long time. And many readers don't know this. If Wikipedia editors are going to persist in posting inaccurate, poorly researched, incomplete and misleading crap, the templates are going to serve a purpose.
KP
On 10/8/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
We need a big template on the front of the article because it's a piece of crap. I didn't even know Wikipedia had talk pages for a long time. And many readers don't know this. If Wikipedia editors are going to persist in posting inaccurate, poorly researched, incomplete and misleading crap, the templates are going to serve a purpose.
Yes, a large portion of readers will never click on a talk page. We should accept that.
Also though, readers may not need to know some of the more technical things about an article, trivia being a good example. There aren't many in my view that are bad, but a few. I don't think it's a huge problem, TFD can handle it. :)
K P wrote:
On 10/7/07, Moe Epsilon moe_epsilon@yahoo.com wrote:
Honestly, I think the only real way to avoid these templates and still get the message across that there is something wrong, is to repurpose the templates so that the message is displayed on the talk page, that way editors still know to fix what needs fixing and the article, to the reader-population, won't be bothered by the overly annoying use of the boxes. Repurposing the templates is something I would support for the majority of the templates.
Honestly, why do we need a big template on the front of an article anyways? Doesn't discussion about how the article should improve in quality and maintain a more neutral point of view take place on the talk page to begin with? Plastering these articles with obsessive templates like {{current}}, {{npov}}, {{wikify}}, etc. are just useless all around for any reader of the website to see.
We need a big template on the front of the article because it's a piece of crap. I didn't even know Wikipedia had talk pages for a long time. And many readers don't know this. If Wikipedia editors are going to persist in posting inaccurate, poorly researched, incomplete and misleading crap, the templates are going to serve a purpose.
KP
What KP said. I couldn't put it any more clearly.
The presence of tags on articles is a _major_ clue for readers about the state of the article, and helps readers become editors. If we are going to fence off readers from editors, we might as well give up on the whole wiki idea.
-- Neil
Neil Harris wrote:
The presence of tags on articles is a _major_ clue for readers about the state of the article, and helps readers become editors. If we are going to fence off readers from editors, we might as well give up on the whole wiki idea.
That doesn't follow. It is one possible outcome with a small number of readers. But many, if not more, who came here looking for information they didn't get elsewhere, will read it as a "_major_ clue" that the article is not reliable, and that they should look elsewhere for the information. Unless they have the habit of writing fixing things in a site is not a natural reaction. Putting pointless tags is far more natural.
Ec
Personally, I'd rather see no further time wasted on templates, and editors time spent removing the need for these templates on as many different articles as possible. It's endless discussions on colours, decisions on changes and time editing these templates that could be much better spent adding references, fixing POV issues, dredging Flickr for free images and what not that has been wasted, in my opinion, on designing new templates.
There's also a defeatist attitude here. There's some sort of bizarre thought that these templates are going to remain on articles for ever, maybe they are, but that's not the attitude we need here. Get them off pages as quickly as possible.
I seem to keep repeating myself over and over again, but instead of tagging a dozen pages, why not fix half a dozen pages. I remind our newer users that references can be really, really quickly created with http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php and I heartily recommend this for anybody who would like to help with referencing but can't. I blitzed British Airways a couple of weeks ago and was able to remove all but one of the citation needs tags with five or ten minutes, only one point took little longer to reference. So, don't tag when you can reference, wikify or dePOV-ify something yourself within the amount of time you have available.
</rant>
On 07/10/2007, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
Does it not drive anyone else up the wall the incessant templates jammed onto the top of our articles? Sure some of the articles have issues that readers as well as editors should be aware of, but it's really ridiculous having these Vogonic bureaucratic Wiki-speak instructions/jargon stamped before the article text for all and sundry to enjoy. Half the time the templates aren't even warranted, or at the least the issue is not important enough to demand anything other than a note on the talk page. It's far too easy for people just to slap on templates onto articles in a sort of wiki-process-allowed defacement of content.
I mean the trivia section warning for one thing. I consider myself firmly in the anti-trivia camp, and indeed I'd nearly support removing offending sections to talk pages as well when asking people to integrate the brainless factoids; but really, there's no need to give instructions on the situation to all our readers. It's just not that important! Templates in fact compound the problem by highlighting the trivia sections! It makes no sense!
As regards the templates that are somewhat necessary (don't use our second-hand info about hurricanes in your area, etc) can a specific area separate from the article content be used for the message? Something like how the fundraising message is displayed?
Zoney
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nick wrote:
Personally, I'd rather see no further time wasted on templates, and editors time spent removing the need for these templates on as many different articles as possible. It's endless discussions on colours, decisions on changes and time editing these templates that could be much better spent adding references, fixing POV issues, dredging Flickr for free images and what not that has been wasted, in my opinion, on designing new templates.
There's also a defeatist attitude here. There's some sort of bizarre thought that these templates are going to remain on articles for ever, maybe they are, but that's not the attitude we need here. Get them off pages as quickly as possible.
I seem to keep repeating myself over and over again, but instead of tagging a dozen pages, why not fix half a dozen pages. I remind our newer users that references can be really, really quickly created with http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php and I heartily recommend this for anybody who would like to help with referencing but can't. I blitzed British Airways a couple of weeks ago and was able to remove all but one of the citation needs tags with five or ten minutes, only one point took little longer to reference. So, don't tag when you can reference, wikify or dePOV-ify something yourself within the amount of time you have available.
</rant>
So, the citation tags worked as intended, then, by motivating you to replace them with the needed references?
-- Neil
I didn't actually notice all the citation tags, I was more determined to get the article out of the various "Articles with unsourced statements since 1154 A.D" or whatever, and I did have a difficult time finding a couple of tags at one point, having to search for the template. I know regular editors are different from the much more common "I can fix that" readitors, and trying to remove an article from a category isn't the normal way of doing things for a lot of people, but I didn't find the tags overly easy to find and deal with.
The point I'm trying to impress on people is that
a) References can be added to many articles almost as quickly and almost as easily as a template, and b) The reference for something might already exist in an existing citation and could easily be reused, taking, again, almost the same length of time as adding a template.
It's excess amounts of work that are quite annoying here, and I doubt many editors can get that warm goo-ie feeling from adding a template that we get from writing and referencing something.
I'm also going to suggest that if a number of articles have a number of references but a user quickly tags these articles as unreferenced or as needing citations, they're not doing the job correctly, they're not checking to see if existing references could cover what is being claimed, and need to be steered in the right direction.
Adding {{cn}} and other assorted templates is one of the great RfA edit count inflation techniques, it gets a user a healthy number of mainspace edits to help them pass an RfA, and yeah, it's probably a little helpful that they're doing what they're doing, but it's nothing like as helpful as fixing the problem when they see it.
On 08/10/2007, Neil Harris usenet@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Nick wrote:
Personally, I'd rather see no further time wasted on templates, and
editors
time spent removing the need for these templates on as many different articles as possible. It's endless discussions on colours, decisions on changes and time editing these templates that could be much better spent adding references, fixing POV issues, dredging Flickr for free images
and
what not that has been wasted, in my opinion, on designing new
templates.
There's also a defeatist attitude here. There's some sort of bizarre
thought
that these templates are going to remain on articles for ever, maybe
they
are, but that's not the attitude we need here. Get them off pages as
quickly
as possible.
I seem to keep repeating myself over and over again, but instead of
tagging
a dozen pages, why not fix half a dozen pages. I remind our newer users
that
references can be really, really quickly created with http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php and I heartily recommend
this
for anybody who would like to help with referencing but can't. I blitzed British Airways a couple of weeks ago and was able to remove all but one
of
the citation needs tags with five or ten minutes, only one point took
little
longer to reference. So, don't tag when you can reference, wikify or dePOV-ify something yourself within the amount of time you have
available.
</rant>
So, the citation tags worked as intended, then, by motivating you to replace them with the needed references?
-- Neil
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 10/8/07, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I seem to keep repeating myself over and over again, but instead of tagging a dozen pages, why not fix half a dozen pages. I remind our newer users that references can be really, really quickly created with http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php and I heartily recommend this for anybody who would like to help with referencing but can't. I blitzed British Airways a couple of weeks ago and was able to remove all but one of the citation needs tags with five or ten minutes, only one point took little longer to reference. So, don't tag when you can reference, wikify or dePOV-ify something yourself within the amount of time you have available.
FWIW, I just used my own tool and Google Scholar to fix /all/ (17, I think) [citation needed] on [[DNA sequencing]]. Granted, I work in that area, but scientific expertise was not really needed to do it.
Cheers, Magnus
Zoney wrote:
Does it not drive anyone else up the wall the incessant templates jammed onto the top of our articles? Sure some of the articles have issues that readers as well as editors should be aware of, but it's really ridiculous having these Vogonic bureaucratic Wiki-speak instructions/jargon stamped before the article text for all and sundry to enjoy. Half the time the templates aren't even warranted, or at the least the issue is not important enough to demand anything other than a note on the talk page. It's far too easy for people just to slap on templates onto articles in a sort of wiki-process-allowed defacement of content.
I admit that with so many templates at the top of pages, I have learned to ignore them as so much meaningless noise and chatter. Fixing the article is often an unrealistic option, especially if I have just gone to the article to inform myself about something that I knew nothing about; in all likelihood I don't have any reference material on the subject anyway. Another option may be to simply remove the template and risk an argument with some nitwit who has taken ownership of the template by putting it on his watchlist. Such an argument will likely be unproductive, and a complete waste of my own time.
So even though I know that they are not good for the 'pedia, I choose to ignore them since that is the path of least resistance.
I mean the trivia section warning for one thing. I consider myself firmly in the anti-trivia camp, and indeed I'd nearly support removing offending sections to talk pages as well when asking people to integrate the brainless factoids; but really, there's no need to give instructions on the situation to all our readers. It's just not that important! Templates in fact compound the problem by highlighting the trivia sections! It makes no sense!
We probably differ on whether trivia should be there in the first place, but that would be a different issue. I also don't see how jamming this stuff into other parts of the article is advantageous. Sometimes that just gives these factoids more importance than they deserve for the sole benefit of getting rid of the "Trivia" heading. I agree with you to the extent that if the heading already exists the template is redundant. One might even say that the templates are themselves just another form of trivia.
Ec
On 08/10/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Another option may be to simply remove the template and risk an argument with some nitwit who has taken ownership of the template by putting it on his watchlist. Such an argument will likely be unproductive, and a complete waste of my own time.
That is technically a violation of AGF. I haven't seen a vast amount of ownership of tags though.