[WikiEN-l] A new and ugly trend

[Garion96]

On 6/29/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> _______________________________________________



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