Wikipedia talk:Editor tags

Sample headers

Npov issues

Sample header for link from project page editor tag.

Pov issues

Sample header for link from project page editor tag.

Style issues

Sample header for link from project page editor tag.

Fact issues

Sample header for link from project page editor tag.

---

This is a really bad idea

Tags saying that the article is factually inaccurate or highly POV should not be in a a way in which only editors can understand them. Those tags are important, they warn readers and tell them to not read the article. If they do, then they'll get false information. --Hottentot

I agree. (Well, the tags remind them to read WP, like everything else on the net and possibly everything else period, with a critical eye.) They should be like a big honking stopsign to the reader. This makes them virtually invisible, and puts WP jargon in place of an actual explanation.

Maybe people are too happy to slap tags on articles left right & centre, without ever stopping to actually try and improve an article, but I have to say this is going way too far in the other direction. pfctdayelise 13:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• I concur that this is a bad idea. It's a lot of work to streamline, it's confusing, and it also messes up some categorizations. Radiant_>|< 15:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

More comments

Somebody decided that this discussion should be fractured among here and two separate RFC pages that are supposed to link to comments. I'm moving it all here. Radiant_>|< 01:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Currently implemented on: Armenian Genocide (1), Asian fetish (2), and Australia's alleged East Timor cover up (2). Any articles with three or four topboxes on them? -St|eve 07:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• By the way currently not implemented any more per heavy opposition on this talk page. Radiant_>|< 01:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't like this approach to the extent it is related to substantive dispute tags, b/c the casual reader will not know what's going on and it suggests the Talk page is in dispute as opposed to the article itself. Australia's alleged East Timor cover up was on my watch list, and when I saw your test change my first thought was that a proponent of the article's PoV was unilaterally trying to coverup the dispute. Your approach is OK for things like cleanup, stub, wikify, etc.--FRS 15:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with FRS, I can see this being useful for the maintenance-type tags (wikify, cleanup), which are really for editors only, but tags such as NPOV, which provide information to the readers also, should be prominent. --bainer (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tags should be prominent too: they indicate to casual readers that Wikipedia is aware of its shortcomings. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 06:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

While users Netholic, Hottentot, and Pfctdayelise have used terms like "heavy opposition", and "apparently rejected" by a "strong majority," these are of course partisan comments about their own partisan views, so its best to first summarise the above specific criticisms:

# Template messages should be bigger! - 
## Too small!
## Readers should read (and understand) them, not just editors 
### Not appropriate for NPOV / POV tags (OK for others)
### Appears to "cover up" any disputes 
### "Suggests the talk page is in dispute as opposed to the article itself."
### "They should be like a big honking stopsign to the reader"
### "they warn readers and tell them to not read the article." 
#### "If they do, then they'll get false information."
# "Messes up categorizations"
# I dont like it!

Thats the summary. Sounds like BS to me. -St|eve 20:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It's nice that you're so civil about it, but perhaps you could just try addressing some of their criticisms, which sound entirely reasonable to me. Ambi 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I had thought they were mostly ridiculous on their surface, but I can address the valid ones if you like: -St|eve 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Major points

Template messages should be bigger! / Too small!

1. Readers should read (and understand) them, not just editors
2. "They should be like a big honking stopsign to the reader"
3. "they warn readers and tell them to not read the article."
   1. "If they do, then they'll get false information."

• Disagree. 1) Process templates can be overused 2) Templates should not be an obstruction to the article 3) Process templates are distinct from disclaimers -- process templates are intended solely for editors whom are a relative minority compared to readers (wikipedias general disclaimers apply). -St|eve 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that templates are often overused on articles. There's no reason to clutter articles with tags aimed at editors. Perhaps this is more of a disagreement over which templates are process template and which ones are disclaimers. The examples in the proposal have NPOV, POV and FACT included in the editor tags, which are certainly issues that a reader should be aware of. In general, I don't think that any tags on the article should be aimed solely at editors. Carbonite | Talk 13:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Agree. If a template is aimed only at editors, it doesn't belong on the article page at all, no matter what size it is. However, for problems that do concern readers such as POV or factual accuracy, the notices on the article should be prominent and easily understood. Carbonite | Talk 13:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Agree. NPOV and factual accuracy templates need to be an obstruction to the article - they're there to warn people to take the content with a grain of salt. Furthermore, they're designed for readers as much as editors, and putting it on the article page is the only way to routinely bring that to the attention of readers. Ambi 02:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Agree, except for 2. Warning readers is fine, but a is a bit over the top. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 07:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Not appropriate for NPOV / POV tags (OK for others)

1. Appears to "cover up" any disputes

• Disagree. The tag is sufficient to both 1) show there is an existing dispute and 2) offer a "keyword" for the specific nature of the dispute -St|eve 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Agree. Unless readers are already familiar with the "keywords", then they will not understand what the tags mean. --bainer (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly agree. A common scenario: Someone visits Wikipedia for the first time and reads an article with POV or factual issues. Will a tiny tag labeled "NPOV" mean anything to them? Very doubtful. It's far better to include standard templates so the necessary information can be conveyed to readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Carbonite | Talk 13:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Agree. I bet you that 99% of non-editors don't know what "NPOV" stands for. --Hottentot
• Strongly agree. What they said: Wikipedia is not just for its editors. Ambi 02:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Other concerns

1. "Suggests the talk page is in dispute as opposed to the article itself."
2. "Messes up categorizations"

• Disagree - moving a template to an article's talk page does not change its reference to an article itself, as the relationship between article and its talk page are common knowledge. -St|eve 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, that's very nice, but I seem to recall that a couple months ago you created smaller versions of a number of oft-used templates, and all of them were heavily voted down on TFD. Apparently consensus disagrees with you on template size. I believe that it's in Wikipedia's best interest to clearly show to any reader what (if anything) is wrong with the article they're reading. Because at least that way, when they read a poor article, they'll realize we're working on it. As a side point, the ET system assumes that everybody knows what acronyms like 'npov' mean, and thus raises the bar for anons to become involved editors. Radiant_>|< 11:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Tags are not just for editors. They are also - perhaps even moreso - for readers, who are hardly likely to routinely check talk pages. Ambi 02:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Agree. Talk pages can get pretty dodgy too. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 07:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Simplification

These templates seem like they would be awkward to use. It would be simpler to link subpages of an article's talk page, and it would be helpful to link policy pages... how does this look? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 06:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC) [papayawhip, what a name for a color]

{| id="shortcut" class="noprint" style="border:1px solid #999; background:papayawhip; margin:1em 0 .5em 1em; text-align:center; padding:5px; clear:right; font-size:smaller;" align="right"
|-
| '''[[Wikipedia:Editor tag|Editing issues]]''':
|-
| ''[[Wikipedia:{{{1}}}|]]'' ([[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}/{{{1}}}|discuss]])
|-
|}

It still makes it easy to overlook. If there's a prevailing reason why I shouldn't take information on a particular page as being at least somewhat accurate and neutral, I'd like to know about it. This is better than the atrocious proposal there at the moment, but how is a little side box saying "neutral point of view" going to help someone not an editor - it really does need the highly visible "This article is not neutral" type header. Ambi 08:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with Ambi. Radiant_>|< 10:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• I also agree with Ambi. Remember, we're here to create an encyclopedia for readers, not for editors. There shouldn't be any learning curve at all for readers. If we want to warn a reader about a possible problem with an article, it should be a clear and obvious notice. Carbonite | Talk 13:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• I concur with Eequor, who unlike others here has been around long enough to know what he's talking about. As for linking to 'subsections of a talk page'- I think this is more useful than - as Alphax said on wikien - just linking to the talk page. Im glad to see there are a couple people who like the idea, and have made some updates to the templates. Not visible enough? Try a tomato border on a salmon background. Link to this page not useful? Right - now links to WP:RDIS. (I notice that RDIS is written from a POV which confuses issues disputes and conduct disputes. I think it will be greatly beneficial in the future to separate these. St|eve 09:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that you now resort to ad hominems to get your point across makes it clear to me that you have no good arguments left. Radiant_>|< 15:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Reject proposal

Considering that everybody except Steve thinks this is a bad idea, I think we should simply reject the proposal and move on. Radiant_>|< 13:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)