Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation/article

This is discussion prior to any vote or suggested solution. It was inspired both by the success of the original WP:TS, by ongoing ugliness/randomness of article templates and arguments at {{merge}} and {{disambig}}. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:30 (UTC)

Categories of template

Please discuss below whether or not standardisation is required for this type of template. Feel free to add any other sections. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Deletion

Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

• I see no reason why these shouldn't be reviewed as part of a general plan. {{delete}} and {{vfd}} could certainly be brought into line with others, to give a consistent look and feel. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
• I think {{vfd}} is fine as it stands. I copied its style (except the background color, which should probably remain different so readers can tell them apart more easily) to {{delete}} and {{deletebecause}} – is this "standardized" enough? — Dan | Talk 3 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
• the tfd template is completely different. It is supposed be break as little as possible. Thus this category is probably only about article deletion. Isn't that just maintenance? --MarSch 3 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)
• The phrasing could use some synchronisation, but the rest looks fine. --Joy [shallot] 14:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Only one template exists in this category but it exists here for completeness. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

• I think this is nicely understated already. Doesn't need standardisation. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
• A category for one template is ridiculous. If it is unlike any other templates then it cannot be standardized with other templates. --MarSch 3 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
• Er, maybe I'm out of the loop, but what "categories" are you talking about here? There's one disambiguation template, but eight semi-disambiguation templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/General. Having said that, they look fine as they are. --Joy [shallot] 14:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• There is at least one other template ({{TLAdisambig}}) if not others, and probably a dozen related templates that address different aspects of disambiguation (such as inter-article referencing and sister-project referencing). Please do not proceed on "standardising" these without consultation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) ... all of which have interested parties in attendance. I'll take this opportunity to point out that you really have very little idea of the scale of what you are trying to address and I (no suprise based on my earlier input) do not support your approach to the (perceived) problem of template inconsistency. Courtland 18:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • That's funny - I could swear that {{TLAdisambig}} looks exactly like {{disambig}}. Strange, perhaps it's already standardised? And yes, I am fully aware of "the scale" - it's hardly a complicated thing. violet/riga (t) 18:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Disputes and warnings

A loose standard exists and needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

• Should certainly be part of any large-scale standardisation project. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
• AFAICT, we switched to the orange background for the Talk page templates, and the rest are fairly in sync. The notable exceptions seem to be {{contradict}}, which could have both a "cleanup" or "dispute" undertone (background, border, text alignment), and "advertising". --Joy [shallot] 14:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Links

Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what you mean by links. How are they related to template standardisation? smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Template messages/Links. violet/riga (t) 30 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
    • Intentionally- and well-understated; keep as is. smoddy 30 June 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Maintenance

A loose standard exists and needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

• Should certainly be part of any large-scale standardisation project. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
• Everything seems fine except for the ambiguity in the application of {{attention}} vs. {{attention_see_talk}}, as well as the two ISSN templates, but those are rarely used. The categorization issues section looks rather divergent, but I don't see much room for synchronisation because they all deal with different things. --Joy [shallot] 14:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Sister project link

Standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I really want to go there... Let the sleeping dog lie. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)

Source details

Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what you mean by source details. How are they related to template standardisation? smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles. violet/riga (t) 30 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
    • As per links, they're fine already. smoddy 30 June 2005 17:37 (UTC)
• There is one inconsistency with these that has bothered me in the past - when you want to move {{eastons}}, {{FOLDOC}} and {{NASA}} to a bulleted list under the References heading, they're still too indented. This indentation could be dropped because the majority of other templates like that don't use it. Same goes for the three templates with little pictures - they need to be adjusted to fit into a list or dropped. --Joy [shallot] 14:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Spoilers

Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

• Already nicely understated. No change needed. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
• How many templates are in here? I know of 3 spoiler templates, which are already synced because they are really variations of one template. --MarSch 3 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)
  • I know of {{magic-spoiler}}. --cesarb 3 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)
    • Which has an image, and {{spoiler}} doesn't. There is a general layout but it just needs formalising (and the presence, or not, of an image being decided). violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)

Stubs

Virtually standardised already but needs formalising. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 17:13 (UTC)

• This may be best left for the Stub-sorting WikiProject to decide, since they are most familar with the issue. I know that they seem to be going to no image, and indented. BlankVerse ∅ 28 June 2005 18:35 (UTC)
• Don't need our help really. Let the wikiproject take care of them. smoddy 30 June 2005 11:22 (UTC)
• Agreed, leave it to the WikiProject, but ... what type of "formalising" was contemplated? There are guidelines for creation, a process for creation through consensus approval of templates and categories, boilerplate for creation, an admin-action zone for deletions ... what other formalising is needed than that? Courtland 18:54, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Where does it say that it is necessary? That information would just be assimilated onto this page as well. violet/riga (t) 19:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts and the disambig template style

I think most people would agree that the article templates should be less eye-catching than the ones on talk pages - the main focus should of course be the article and accompanying pictures rather than notices about various stuff.

I really like the style of the {{disambig}} template. It's non-intrusive, but still visible. I would personally like to see this kind of style being used across the board for the templates included on article pages. Thoughts? Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)

I like the disambiguation template too. Not sure how well it looks at the top of an article, but it's something to consider. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 18:17 (UTC)

One of the features that makes {{disambig}} so attractive is its uniqueness. When you see that particular comment format, you can immediately identify the page as a disambiguation page without having to read the text. By making everything look like that, one would sap the strength of the disambiguation template without conferring that strength onto the rest of the templates.
A lesson to take from the disambiguation template is that distinctiveness has advantages. The question is what degree of distinctiveness is most helpful; another way of looking at this is what are the main template type divisions that would benefit from being immediately distinguishable from one another. This is a different consideration from what categories of templates exist.
Courtland July 3, 2005 04:24 (UTC)

impractical

It is impractical to bring all these various templates onto this page for discussion. That is much better done on the respective talk pages. I suggest, rather than this format, that the article template standarisation be done much like a "Collaboration of the Week", with interested parties moving from one template "genre" to the next, with discussion happening on those talk pages. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 17:58 (UTC)

Why is it impractical? Why is it better done on those talk pages? Centralising it will make it easier to see the discussion as whole in my opinion, as everything will be on one 'page'. Talrias (t | e | c) 28 June 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Simply because one standard will not work for all article-space templates. -- Netoholic @ June 28, 2005 18:11 (UTC)

Hence the categorisation system. violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)

There might be a bit of misunderstanding here. I don't think the intention is to consider each individual template on this page. My understanding is that this is one layer of the standardisation process, an attempt to identify what standards, if any, can be shared across all templates or, more narrowly, whether certain standards can be identified for broad classes of templates ... the latter as evidenced by the categorisation. Indeed, specific revisions to specific templates would appropriately be placed (read as must be placed) on that particular template's talk page, otherwise you run the certain risk of meeting fierce resistance from heavy users of template X when they see that that template has changed (apparently) without discussion. This is just another way of saying that both of you are right and there's no need to derail the current discussion. Keep in mind that standaridisation means identification and application of standards not make everything look and work the same. Courtland July 3, 2005 04:14 (UTC)

Printing

I don't know if it were possible, but would it be a good idea for these template categories to be automatically hidden when printing? violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 18:15 (UTC)

Ahh - I believe it might be possible by using class="noprint". violet/riga (t) 28 June 2005 18:46 (UTC)

Standardisation of templates

I really wish there was a standard adopted for ALL templates, because the ones I visit get changed every single day. There needs to be an agreement on box/no box and image/no image. Personally I'd go with box and image to show that it is indeed a notice and not just random text in an article. Elfguy 30 June 2005 12:40 (UTC)

Example organisation

Just like the competition for talk page templates, I've set User:Violetriga/inprogress as an example of how this may be organised. violet/riga (t) 3 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)

that is just a couple of ugly versions of existing templates. I am beginning to lose faith in this standardization attempt. There is too much emphasis on individual templates. --MarSch 4 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what's going off here. That is an example framework and others will be able to suggest their own versions of templates. I don't see how you can justify your last point when there are clear categories (ie. large groupings of templates). And instead of losing faith, why not suggest things? violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)

I have voiced my objections to two not-so-big categories, but very little is happening. --MarSch 5 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

What would you like to happen? violet/riga (t) 5 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)

Basic types of article template

I'm wondering if we need to nail down the basic types of article template, based on:

• whether the template is permanent, semi-permanent or transitory;
• whether the template is aimed at the casual reader or the serious editor;
• whether or not the information is relevant before seeing the rest of the article.

For example:

• {{vfd}} is semi-permanent, aimed at the serious editor, and relevant before you get to the article itself;
• {{otheruses}} is permanent, aimed at everybody, and again relevant before you get to the article itself;
• {{inuse}} is transitory, aimed at the serious editor, and relevant before clicking on the edit link.
• stub templates are semi-permanent tending towards transitory, more aimed at editors than otherwise, and are not necessarily relevant until you have read the article.

I think that all article templates can be classified in this way, but I'm open to correction. I would like to be able to allow users of all types to specify whether they can see the various classes of article template at all, and how prominently they are displayed if so. I think it is very likely that taking the CSS route as we have with talk templates is likely a good way to go. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk July 4, 2005 14:06 (UTC)

think the distinction between permanent templates and other templates is useful.--MarSch 5 July 2005 12:16 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Maurreen 9 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

Discussion page reference

I dunno if this is appropriate here, but...

Suggestion: Templates reference "Discussion" page, rather than "Talk" unless they are in the User namespace. The page is named "Discussion," not "Talk." "Talk" is inaccurate, wikipedia jargon and confusing. (I found it confusing when I first started exploring wikipedia.) -->>sparkit|TALK<< 17:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Merge" templates

I disagree with the decision to categorize these under "disputes and warnings." Merging is a type of cleanup, and therefore belongs in the "maintenance" category. I patterned the current "merge" templates after the existing "cleanup" templates (deliberately selecting a color scheme that's similar, but not identical). I'm planning to add a submission soon, and I intend to follow this formula. —Lifeisunfair 22:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, having used that one as an example a) because it had been in discussion and b) because, at the time, it was listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes. violet/riga (t) 08:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I moved the merge stuff to from /Disputes to subsections of /Maintenance and /Cleanup on July 12th. They were misplaced on the former. We don't really need a standardisation drive to apply good sense... :) --Joy [shallot] 14:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Template messages

...and subpages could use some cleaning up, since several templates are in the wrong category, or listed twice, or simply stand out for having a different layout than anything else around them. If someone has a free hour or two... Radiant_>|< 23:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Some are listed twice intentionally, and many are transcluded in more than one page, so in those cases it's better to discuss each issue individually. Also, formatting can also be a matter of mixed application. --Joy [shallot] 20:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Stargateproject

Look at this thing! It's in violation. Violation, I tells ya! ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 03:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone here?

If anyone still watches this page, I'd love to revive this discussion. We could especially use standards for top-of-article templates. – flamurai (t) 06:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, blanca is wonderful. Very clean, intuitive, and professional. Great work :)

A couple of small suggestions: The bar of color could perhaps be a fixed width and a little thinner (say, 10px instead of 1em)? And the {{maintenance}} template name is already in use for something else, so you'll need to change that ;) -Quiddity 09:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone?

I just recommended this page on a recent village pump discussion --Random832 13:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Most maintenance templates should be placed on the talk page

Copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (--PBS 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)):

(The following message, but not the replies posted below it, was copied from Wikipedia talk:Maintenance by The Transhumanist   00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC))...

I have a couple of friends who work in the visual electronic entertainment industry. I now avoid watching anything with them because instead of enjoying the film or television program, they sit there commenting on technical features in the film, lighting, cuts etc. I think that with people who regularly edit Wikipedia articles instead of viewing articles for the information they contain (as most readers do) they view the article for how well put together it is and if it can be improved.

One manifestation of this I have noticed, which in my opinion is the growing tendency, is to add what are editorial comments to the article page instead of on to the talk page. If a person edits an article page and write in plain text. "This page is not good enough it needs more information" the comment will either be moved to the talk page or it will be deleted as vandalism. However if a person puts a template at the top of a page then they feel that is justified (eg {{cleanup-bio}}, but in essence it is contributing nothing more to the article than the plain text does.

There are exceptions to this, for example I think that the {{unreferenced}} placed in a "Reference" section at the bottom of an article, serves a dual purpose. It is a maintenance template but it also adds information that a passing reader of the page (who is not familiar with Wikipeda) needs to know. But a passing reader does not need to know {{wikify}} "This article (or section) may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." Comments like this should in my opinion be placed on talk page. --PBS 09:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Tag clutter is a growing problem, and it detracts from the quality of the encyclopedia. So if an article has unwiki formatting, someone comes along and adds a tag or two that make the article even worse and more unencyclopedic. Clean up projects are misnamed, as they are virtually spreading litter everywhere. Pretty soon we're going to need clean up projects just to clean up the mess created by the current clean up projects. The Transhumanist   00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do quite a bit of WikiGnoming, which means I spend a lot of time nosing around in categories like Articles needing to be Wikified, etc. From an organizational standpoint, I think that these could easily be just categories added to the page, rather than huge banners at the top of the page. However, if a new user comes across a page that has no wiki markup, that user might think that this is the style he or she should strive for while editing. Really, the article's content serves two almost opposing purposes for editors and for readers. And, I admit, I've added necessary wiki tags to articles for purely political purposes, meaning that I disagreed with the content of the article but rather than risk any sort of edit war or conflict, I just added cleanup tags so that someone else would take care of it! -sthomson06 (Talk) 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Replace all tags with a single icon?

Perhaps what is needed is a little icon that can be placed in the top right corner of articles needing work. The presence of the icon would indicate that there are tags which need to be addressed on the article's talk page. The advantages would be that at 3/8" x 3/8" it would be fairly unobtrusive, and would also take the place of multiple tags. One icon fits all. The Transhumanist   00:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting thought. There is a division between those tags that are of benefit to the readers and those of benefit to the editors. Indications of a lack of references or a POV problem are of benefit to the readers. Orphan article, merge suggestions, expansion requests, and wikification are really only of benefit to the editors. (Though any of them may encourage a reader to become an editor, and the benefit of that is significant.)

Accordingly, I'd start by classifying the two types of templates into those two broad categories. The editor only ones could be moved to such an icon (with an invitation for the reader to become an editor/help fix them), but the reader caution ones should not go to the same type of single icon. A different common icon might work for those, but I'm not certain. GRBerry 00:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the little icons can be color coded: red for those tags that are of benefit to the readers and other colors that benefit to the editors. The shape of the icon might also be used (e.g. stop sign shape for more serious tags.) It might be nice if the icons linked to actual tags on the talk page. A division between those tags that are a must to appear on the article page and those that need only be icons might help as well. -- Jreferee 01:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could be expandable? If a registered editor clicks on the little icon, it would pop out a box with the standard template, like a cross between the popups tool and those template boxes with the [Show] link at the top to expand them. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The templates serve to both inform & remind the casual reader that the article/site is in continuous development, and also act as a lure for curious-readers to become new-editors. Some of the templates could use an aesthetic update (See Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article. I really like flamurai's fairly recent 'blanca' additions), but moving them all to the talkpage would be dishonest and disadvantageous. --Quiddity 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not if the icon used is documented well throughout Wikipedia's help and support pages. We'd have to make it ubiquitous so everybody knew what it was. The only problem I can see is with the mirrors. We could link the icon itself to an explanation page on what the icon means. If it's done right, that page would automatically be included in the mirrors. The icon might be especially effective if it included the word "Alert!". The Transhumanist   04:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"More icons" is not a popular solution to anything, especially in the top-right corner. See Template talk:Spoken Wikipedia for how contentious even that one is; only the featured stars have fairly unanimous approval. And the mirrors can take care of themselves. --Quiddity 09:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Tags are visible for a reason. They invite people to edit. >Radiant< 09:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Radiant, having the tags on the page does encourage people to fix it. I know I don't look at the talk page of ery article I go to, most editors won't either. However, I think it would be a good idea to create smaller versions of some templates, for articles that need a lot. Some articles have so many tags the tags take up the whole window. I think if they are going to be stacked (cleanup, wikify, sources, notability) then they should use smaller templates, to avoid obscuring the content. Something that only takes 1 or 2 lines with no images. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• This all goes to a pet peeve of mine about proper tagging and documentation of when these IN-YOUR-FACE trash tags go on the page. Most do not note on the talk with a section describing their gripe. So it's a lazy way out. Perhaps they do invite others to edit, and so have they admittedly goaded me, but there is a corollary responsibility... some clues left behind for the others who have to Guess what the editor applying such is thinking. At the very least the current crop of cleanup tags should shout an error message if they are not given a valid talk page section title to merge into a link input. The current crop defaults to the talk page where ninety-nine times out of a hundred there is no section discussing what the tagging editor believes as a problem—letting umptine dozens of editors who happen by later to guess at what the problem may be. I've found articles tagged clean-up for over 15 months and somewhere over 130 edits... so the system clearly needs some adjustments.

As a related aside I was going to post below, See {{DATE}}, which should help make that problem solution more effective, if people use it. Virtually all the cleanup tags I'm familiar with will be satisfied by that template which needs substituted, but that will come out loud and clear the first time one doesn't! <g> It produces date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} as a reminder, and "

date=February 2007

" when applied like this: {{clean|{{subst:DATE}}}}, for example. That date= after the pipe is precisely the input parameter most of the the IN-YOUR-FACE tags are designed to take. The tagging overloading a page can and should be handled by using a version of '|small=1' switching which is common to an increasing number of tags should they be kept on main pages. Another alternative there would be the hide/show tagging modes many navigation templates are sporting these days.

The date tagging of such templates has been a good impulse in the right direction, but created need for patrolling parties and BOTs to check on that. But I agree strongly with Phillip, most Banner templates are deleterious to our reputations with the occasional reader and even the regular users. They aid the press perception that we are unreliable. So I like Transhumanist's idea of a iconic tag, but would not make it a right margin tag, but a left margin simple message: Editor attention needed which would be a link to the article talk page Section where the cleanup and such tag resides... See for example: {{Commons}} and the smaller but Brassier {{Gallery-link}} (style meant for category page tagging--not shown, see Category:Saxony for that). So I'm thinking of the laid back style of these two Commons tags (which are showing combinations of three different operations modes between the two examples here), with the size and plain link of that one in the category. As can plainly be seen, the text wraps right about them.

That Iconic notice could be even more sophisticated in assuming service page similar to the /doc pages now being used for template documentation. That is a local sub-page, an {{/cleanup}} page, which acts as a storage register to some hypothetical {{clean-status}} 'display template' in a page's head section-- if the register's got includable content, then the 'display macro' on the article places the edit message automatically and once put in place, never need be removed, as it depends on the content in {{{{PAGENAME}}/cleanup}} for activation and a link to display. So it would hold a simple #if: test like are frequently used in testing for named parameters, if there is nothing to include... the article is clean without a tag display, which stays silent.

The Talk page would hold the actual tag in the section, but the 'in your face templates' could then all be put on the talks, and some notice still be given to browsing editors with a few minutes to spare. Whether the categories show the page or the talk page is immaterial--both are article related, so anyone patroling those can do so easily enough.

The little extra trouble the editor's who are making, what is after all, 'a serious judgment call', will create an impetus to justify their actions since they have to slow down a bit to initiate the talk page section, regardless, and if necessary, install the indicator template per The Transhumanist's suggestion. For my part, I figure anyone adding any such tag in a hurry without judicious consideration, is not someone I want hanging them at all, ever. I would suggest the 'cleanup page' be "dirtied" by a link to the talk section our (now, hopefully, more) dutiful editor tagging the article has to define first.

Since in the new version tagging templates for talk pages, there should be a edit link to the {{/cleanup}} page, his/her tagging would include adding or editing the talk page section title into the cleanup page to become the end of an autogenerated link in the {{/cleanup}} page. Such an extra page edit is minor and handled by a click, paste (page section title), and save... followed by saving/closing their rationale in the talk. Thus the articles would become less of an eyesore to the readers, and so forth... still satisfying: Tags are visible for a reason. They invite people to edit. At least for most of the people who count in such cases... the people who already do. We can recruit editors some other way, such considerations should not drive our policies, but what makes the project better overall, and these IN-YOUR-FACE-DUMMY templates crap all over it looking from the outside in.

Handling multiple taggings in the {{/cleanup}} page is easy enough too. The oldest tag is kept on the active part of the page. Additional talk page section titles would simply be added on the noinclude part of the page, oldest listed on top. When a cleanup/expert/copyedit/disputed tag is cleared, before it is deleted, it's self-link to the {{/cleanup}} page can be used to delete the matching section title. The obvious exception is the merge tags, which in the latest generation are far more unobtrusive and less detrimental than most banner tagging.

So to me, The Transhumanist's proposal is technically feasible and sufficiently easy to implement that it could at least be tried for a few weeks or months. The other side of this coin is simple -- what proof exists that any of these banner tags have caused an newcomer to begin an editing career? What proof is there that given the link as I propose and that simple message Editing help needed, the reader-customer won't follow the link out of curiosity. If it leads to a few lines describing whatever deficiencies exist, then they may be emboldend to go ahead and make some changes as the tag hanger indicated are needed. Cheers! // FrankB 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

---

See Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article. This sort of input would probably be welcome over there. Also, what does everyone think of this? --Random832 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As this section is getting close to its sell by date, I will cut and past to there, so that there is a record of this exchange. Please post any additional comments on that page --PBS 13:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

See also User:Shanes/Why tags are evil. --PBS 08:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm always happy to see that someone agrees with me (and I thought I was the only one). Didn't take a lot of search to find the discussion about this. I came here because I think the "protected" templates are very annoying and should not be at the top of pages. I come here wanting to read about Japan, and the first thing I see is that this page has been vandalised. First think I thought, then why read it if it's full of vandalisim. That's actually not the case, it's protected so that more vandals don't edit it. But that's honestly the first thing that I though. And I wonder how many other people have thought the same thing when they go to these so called protected pages. I take a strong stand that "protected page" templates should not be at the top of the page. A small icon in the upper right corner or just at the talk page. --Steinninn ^talk 01:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Shanes' essay says it all. There is a related but unlinked discussion at Template_talk:Cleanup#Small_Icon_Conversion which I think demonstrates there are alot of people who agree. Perhaps these discussions should be merged and moved in the direction of making a formal proposal. Jerry 15:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The tags are useful in that they remind the reader that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is constantly changing, never a complete work and hence never perfect and perfectly reliable (sometimes vandalized, too). On some other language wikipedias, the wiki editors are hiding the problems and the controversies in the markup or on the discussion pages - the result looks deceptively "nice and clean", like an "authoritative" text, to the naive reader coming from outside; and its content is nevertheless (or maybe for this same reason?) frequently less accurate and more biased than on the English Wikipedia. I say transparency is good. --Anonymous44 13:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)