Hi all, Are there any "request for second opinion" templates? There are many times where I come across an article that smells fishy to me. However, I'm not certain. All the processes like AfD, Prod etc presume that you are personally sponsoring the destruction of the page. But at times I'd simply like to add the page (with a minimum of effort) to some list where smart people can be alerted to possible dodginess.
Ideally for me, such a template would simply add a template, with no big ugly banner, again on the basis that I could be wrong.
The kinds of things that I might like to flag an article with: - "smells like copyright violation" - possible hoax - contribution from user with history of bad edits - unsourced change of a figure (eg, adjusting a city's population, a number of awards won by someone, but not explaining the source for the new figure)
I suppose what particularly concerns me is that some tags, like cleanup, are really ugly and a bit of a slap in the face to contributors to the article.
Any ideas?
Steve
Hi Steve,
If you're concerned about slapping an overly prominent notice at the top, try tacking the {{citation needed}} template onto the end of the questionable statement(s), since it provides a small "citation needed" link to [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]].
Steve Bennett wrote:
Hi all, Are there any "request for second opinion" templates? There are many times where I come across an article that smells fishy to me. However, I'm not certain. All the processes like AfD, Prod etc presume that you are personally sponsoring the destruction of the page. But at times I'd simply like to add the page (with a minimum of effort) to some list where smart people can be alerted to possible dodginess.
Ideally for me, such a template would simply add a template, with no big ugly banner, again on the basis that I could be wrong.
The kinds of things that I might like to flag an article with:
- "smells like copyright violation"
- possible hoax
- contribution from user with history of bad edits
- unsourced change of a figure (eg, adjusting a city's population, a
number of awards won by someone, but not explaining the source for the new figure)
I suppose what particularly concerns me is that some tags, like cleanup, are really ugly and a bit of a slap in the face to contributors to the article.
Any ideas?
Steve
On 16/04/06, Minh Nguyen mxn@zoomtown.com wrote:
Hi Steve,
If you're concerned about slapping an overly prominent notice at the top, try tacking the {{citation needed}} template onto the end of the questionable statement(s), since it provides a small "citation needed" link to [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]].
Hi, Yep, that's one example...{{uncat}} is another. But there are quite a few problems that can arise with articles that don't seem to have ready solutions. Notability for example - if you stick {{notable}} on the top of an article, it's an incredible eyesore. Perhaps sticking them on the talk page (even if not designed for the purpose) is a way of letting other editors know?
I note, for example, that there is almost never anything in the category related to {{uncat}}, and when I stuck it on a page, another editor picked up on it very quickly. It's a question of getting the right editors to look at the right articles in time.
(I don't have a better formulation of the exact problem I'm trying to solve, atm)
Steve
On 4/16/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I note, for example, that there is almost never anything in the category related to {{uncat}}, and when I stuck it on a page, another editor picked up on it very quickly. It's a question of getting the right editors to look at the right articles in time.
That is only recently. Many people have worked a lot on cleaning up that category. There used to be a big backlog there.
Btw, another template sort of fitting (you probably heard of it) is {{verify}}.
Garion96
On 17/04/06, Garion1000 garion1000@gmail.com wrote:
Btw, another template sort of fitting (you probably heard of it) is {{verify}}.
Yep, but personally I'm not much of a fan. Has any of Wikipedia been "verified"? What exactly are we saying when we say that a section has not been "verified". Realistically we're saying that we don't actually believe it, or at least that we're skeptical. But that's not quite what the template says to the casual reader...
Steve