There are many templates that I sorely miss in Wikipedia. Here is a short sample
Editorial templates for articles edit
"Love templates" template edit
 |
This article contains too few editorial templates. Please help vandalize Wikipedia by adding as many obnoxious and useless editorial templates to this article as you can think of. Articles without such templates run the risk of being appreciated by readers. (August 2009) |
"Orphan" template edit
.jpg) |
This article is not referenced by any other article in Wikipedia and therefore will be read only by those people who need information on its topic and search for it or for the relevant keywords. Please help confuse our readers by inserting a few links to this article in other random articles so that it will be found and read by users who did not want to find or read it.That is what wikilinks were invented for. (January 2013) |
"Unreferenced" template edit
|
|
This article contains no references. Any idiot can see that; but we are assuming that you, dear reader, are not just any ordinary idiot, but an especially incredibly amazingly stupid idiot who suffers from paranoid delusions, and we fear that you may see plenty of references where in fact there is not even a hint of them. That is why we felt necessary to put this warning here at the top of the article, rather than in the talk page. But, don't feel bad; any idiot, including yourself, can help Wikipedia by adding plenty of references to obscure, cranky, irrelevant, or unobtainable sources to this page, so that other idiots may mistake it for a peer-reviewed authoritative journal article. Chances are that it will be years before any editor will bother to check those sources. (November 2009) |
"Facts" template edit
 |
This article contains some factual information, and therefore may contain errors. This violates Wikipedia's fundamental policy of not publishing anything that has the slightest probability of being wrong. Readers are therefore advised not to read any further and instead seek random homepages, tabloids, crank books, and other sources which do not share our bizarre obsession. Editors are urged to delete any parts of this article that contain factual information, leaving only section headers and editorial templates. Any facts are likely to be disputed and therefore must be removed without discussion. (August 2009) |
"Deus ex templata" template edit
 |
This is an editorial template, and therefore the editor who inserted it here is God. Unlike ordinary text, that anyone can delete at will, an editorial template cannot absolutely be deleted except after an express written authorization by Jim Wales, the sacrifice of three goats and a young virgin maiden, and consensus approval by the Editorial Template Designers Syndicate. After all, editors who are unwilling to contribute to Wikipedia are entitled to have fun with it, too. (August 2009) |
"That template stays here" template edit
 |
The template above is an editorial template which was inserted here by some editor in order to send a request or suggestion to other editors. You may wonder what that stuff is doing here in the article page, before the leading paragraph (which of course is not "leading" any more) — instead of being in the talk page, which was created precisely for the purpose of editor-to-editor communication. Frankly, I don't know either. Perhaps some guy put that template on an article by mistake, and other editors though it was a consensus Wikipedia policy and started enforcing it all over the place. I myself have been doing that for a few years; it makes me feel useful. It is better than sitting at the bar getting drunk, you must agree. But now that you mention it, it does seem a bit illogical. Say, a guy wants to know what a paramecium is, types "paramecium" into the search window — but instead of an article on that little critter, he gets a statement that some anonymous jerk did not quite like something or other about the way references are placed on some page, and expects someone else will do something about it; and that he has been waiting since november 2006, precisely, so it had better be done soon enough, or... or... or, well, maybe it will be done at some later time. Hmmm... Yeah, 'guess you are right, it is stupid. Totally. But it does not matter anyway, it is now a Rule and there is no arguing about it. So, you are hereby warned: do not move that template back to the talk page. If you do that again, I will tell Jimbo and he will ban you from Wikipedia for good. Actually Wikipedia has lots of stupid rules like this one, that no one knows how they came to be. Around here, we call that sort of thing "consensus". (december 2009) |
"Mass vandalism" template edit
 |
i tihnk sally jenkins is the cuuuutest girl in my sckool SFSFDSDfsfsdffdfsFSDF♥•¶#©¤SFSF hey dis is cool!!!!!! i love wipipidia tenplates r0botz u guys are all schmuks ha ha ha (January 2001) |
"Robot almighty" template edit
 |
This text comes from a template which has been inserted here with the help of a robot. Once, many years ago, the author of this text used to edit articles by hand, like you. But that was quite frustrating: it took him perhaps five minutes to type in a short paragraph of text like this, which would then appear in only one article. And then his contribuition could be challenged and deleted by any other editor. How could he ever achieve his dream — namely, impose his tastes on the whole of wikipedia? He felt a miserable nobody, just one ordinary guy among ten thousand other guys like him — if not better than him. But that was then. Now, thanks to templates and robots, that fellow can write a paragraph just once and quickly paste it into thousands of articles, just by clicking with the mouse. Thus the opinion of the author of this template is now worth a thousand times more than that of idiots like you, who still edit articles by hand. If a hundred of you delete this template, he can undo you all in the blink of an eye. Our guy is now way up in the edit statistics charts, basking in the limelight. He thinks he is the greatest Wikipedian of all times after Jimbo of course. He is God. Boy, don't that feel good! And don't bother complaining on the policy forums, because the guy will have the immediate support of a hundred other robot-wielding bullies like him. Shut up and get lost, Wikipedia is not for insignificant little wimps like you. (December 2009) |
"Templates are too discrete" template edit
|
|
 |
The editorial templates in this page are too small and discrete. Please help vandalize Wikipedia by designing really huge and ugly editorial templates for the most trivial nits you can think of. |
|
|
|
| Remember, a Wikipedia article without editorial templates is like a monument without graffiti.(August 2009) | |
|
|
|
"Last message to readers" template edit
 |
WE APOLOGISE FOR THE INCONVENIENCE |
Stub tags edit
"Precisely categorized" stub tags edit
 |
This biographical article about a Scottish astronomer is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. | |
 |
This biographical article about a White astronomer is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. | |
| This biographical article about a Republican astronomer is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. | ||
 |
This biographical article about a Southern Baptist astronomer is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. | |
 |
This biographical article about a gay/lesbian astronomer is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. | |
| This biographical article about a middle-aged astronomer is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. | ||
 |
This biographical article about a left-handed astronomer is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. | |
| This biographical article about a Scottish White Republican Southern Baptist gay/lesbian middle-aged left-handed astronomer living in Peoria, Illinois who served in the Bolivian Navy in late 1973 and who is very fond of Britney Spears and Star Trek The Next Generation and lukewarm anchovy pizza with root beer is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
"What is a stub" stub tag edit
 |
This article about a relatively medium-sized species of five-spined reddish blenny is a stub. In case you are wondering, the difference between a stub and a very short article is that a stub is an article of any length that has got stub tag on it, like this one; whereas a very short article is an article that is very short but lacks a stub tag. Stubs should not be confused with articles that need urgent attention (either because they lack essential information that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia article, or because their text, markup and layout are in a terrible state). Wikipedia has over 3,000,000 articles in the latter category, but only 1,600,000 of them have been officially classified as stubs. The purpose of stub tags, in case you haven't guessed, is to help the 10,000 regular Wikipedia editors find articles that could use some work. Please help Wikipedia by either deleting this tag or by adding it to other articles as suits your fancy. |
Editorial templates for talk pages edit
"This page is our property" template edit
 |
This article has been unilaterally declared to belong to WikiProject South Street, a |
"Yet Another Inane Wikiproject" template edit
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject However, a collaborative effort to improve and expand the usage of the word "However" in Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you may enter into endless discussions on this inane topic, join the list of members whose only contribution to the project was joining that list, and see a list of open tasks that are guaranteed to remain open until Hell freezes over.
|