[WikiEN-l] A new and ugly trend

[The Cunctator]

On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
>
> The Cunctator schreef:
> > On 6/29/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at 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.