|
||||||||||
Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. |
Nice Template
Is there no nice Cleanup Template ? Something like. Tone and formatting of this article could be improved a bit. Please help to optimize it. Or somthing like that.
Most of the Tamplates i see here they all sounds very hard and offensive and not very warm or constructive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Constructive_tagging says "Constructive criticism given in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in a collaborative project like Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged." 178.195.55.26 (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Potentially unwanted content
This section starts off with:
But this is not helpful. I'm not here to learn what is unwanted. I'm here to learn which templates to use on articles with potentially unwanted content.
And I'm afraid the selection of templates offered by this section does not cover these usages.
What template is appropriate to say "Wikipedia is not a technical manual; this stuff needs to be cleaned out", for instance? Or Any other of the things WP:NOT enumerates.
I am really surprised this article links to that policy page without offering a corresponding set of cleanup tags. Perhaps {{NotManual}}, {{NotDirectory}}, {{NotNewspaper}}, and so on for articles with potentially unwanted content.
CapnZapp (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
obsolete claim?
Which template do we use to indicate "this claim is no longer relevant, except in a historical sense"?
That is, the claim is verifiably true. The claim is well sourced. But its place in the article should still be questioned, since it has been surpassed by "newer truths".
Obviously, if I were an expert in the field, I would simply (and boldly) remove the paragraph. But I'm not, so I'm looking for which cleanup tag to use to indicate "perhaps the reader no longer needs to learn this, in light of recent developments?"
I've looked for every template involving "obsolete" or "superseded", but no luck. CapnZapp (talk) 04:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- @CapnZapp: I think {{Update}} or {{Update inline}} could do this, with the "reason" parameter filled in carefully. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Though wouldn't it be better to have a dedicated {{obsolete claim}} tag (or somesuch)? This is not a matter of the source needing any updates. (The "update" sought after here is "removal" with nothing replacing it... and that doesn't sound like an "update" to me) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 07:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2022
There is a misplaced "either" in the following paragraph:
- Don't do "drive-by" tagging.
- Tags must either be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter (available in some templates) as shown below. At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion.
It should be changed, by moving "either", to read:
- Don't do "drive-by" tagging.
- Tags must be accompanied by either a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter (available in some templates) as shown below. At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion. DHW1947 (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)