User:ClaretAsh/Maintenance templates
- {{Abbreviations}}
- {{ActiveDiscuss}}
- {{Advert}}
- {{Aero-table}}
- {{All plot}}
- {{Alumni}}
- {{Ambiguous}}
- {{Anachronism}}
- {{Animals cleanup}}
- {{AnimalsTaxobox}}
- {{Autobiography}}
- {{Bad summary}}
- {{Biblio}}
- {{BLP IMDb refimprove}}
- {{BLP sources}}
- {{BLP unsourced}}
- {{Book-fiction}}
- {{Broken ref}}
- {{Broken}}
- {{Buzzword}}
- {{Buzzword}}
- {{Capitalization}}
- {{Category relevant?}}
- {{Category unsourced}}
- {{Chronology citation needed}}
- {{CIA}}
- {{Citation needed (lead)}}
- {{Citation style}}
- {{Citations broken}}
- {{Citations missing}}
- {{Cite check}}
- {{Cite plot points}}
- {{Clarify-span}}
- {{Clarify}}
- {{Cleanup-articletitle}}
- {{Cleanup-biography}}
- {{Cleanup-book}}
- {{Cleanup-chartable}}
- {{Cleanup-colors}}
- {{Cleanup-combine}}
- {{Cleanup-comics}}
- {{Cleanup-gallery}}
- {{Cleanup-GM}}
- {{Cleanup-HTML}}
- {{Cleanup-ICHD}}
- {{Cleanup-images}}
- {{Cleanup-infobox}}
- {{Cleanup-jargon}}
- {{Cleanup-laundry}}
- {{Cleanup-link rot}}
- {{Cleanup-list}}
- {{Cleanup-London}}
- {{Cleanup-remainder}}
- {{Cleanup-reorganize}}
- {{Cleanup-rewrite}}
- {{Cleanup-school}}
- {{Cleanup-spam}}
- {{Cleanup-tense}}
- {{Cleanup-tracklist}}
- {{Cleanup-university}}
- {{Cleanup-weighted-section}}
- {{Cleanup-weighted}}
- {{Cleanup}}
- {{Close paraphrasing}}
- {{Colloquial}}
- {{Condense}}
- {{Confusing section}}
- {{Confusing}}
- {{Contact information}}
- {{Context needed}}
- {{Context-inline}}
- {{Context}}
- {{Contradict-inline}}
- {{Contradict-other-multiple}}
- {{Contradict-other}}
- {{Contradict}}
- {{Contradiction-inline}}
- {{Convert template}}
- {{Copy edit}}
- {{Copyedit-section}}
- {{Create-list}}
- {{Criticism section}}
- {{Criticism title}}
- {{Crystal}}
- {{Dablinks}}
- {{Data missing}}
- {{Dead end}}
- {{Dead link header}}
- {{Debate}}
- {{Definition}}
- {{Dicdef}}
- {{Directory}}
- {{Disambiguation needed}}
- {{Disputed-section}}
- {{Disputed}}
- {{Duplication}}
- {{Editorial}}
- {{Elucidate}}
- {{Empty section}}
- {{Essay-like}}
- {{Example farm}}
- {{Expand further}}
- {{Expand outline}}
- {{Expand section}}
- {{Expert-subject-multiple}}
- {{Expert-subject}}
- {{Expert-talk}}
- {{Expert-verify}}
- {{External links-inline}}
- {{External links}}
- {{Famous players}}
- {{Famous}}
- {{Fanpov}}
- {{Fiction}}
- {{Fictionrefs}}
- {{Film-fiction}}
- {{Further reading cleanup}}
- {{Game cleanup}}
- {{Game guide}}
- {{Generalize-section}}
- {{Generalize}}
- {{Geodata-check}}
- {{Hadith authenticity}}
- {{Hoax}}
- {{Howto}}
- {{Ibid}}
- {{Icon-issues}}
- {{Importance-section}}
- {{In popular culture}}
- {{In-universe}}
- {{Inadequate lead}}
- {{Inappropriate person}}
- {{Inappropriate tone}}
- {{Include-eb}}
- {{Incoherent-topic}}
- {{Incoherent}}
- {{Incomplete table}}
- {{Incomplete}}
- {{Integrate}}
- {{ISBN}}
- {{ISSN-needed}}
- {{Issue}}
- {{Lead missing}}
- {{Lead rewrite}}
- {{Lead too long}}
- {{Lead too short}}
- {{Like resume}}
- {{List dispute}}
- {{List missing criteria}}
- {{List to table}}
- {{List years}}
- {{Local}}
- {{Longish}}
- {{Magazine}}
- {{Manual}}
- {{Misleading}}
- {{Missing fields}}
- {{Missing information}}
- {{Mission}}
- {{More footnotes}}
- {{More-specific-links}}
- {{MOS}}
- {{MOSLOW}}
- {{Multiple issues}}
- {{NCBI taxonomy}}
- {{Neologism inline}}
- {{Neologism}}
- {{Newinfobox}}
- {{News release section}}
- {{News release}}
- {{NFimageoveruse}}
- {{No footnotes}}
- {{No plot}}
- {{Nonfiction}}
- {{NOT}}
- {{NPOV language}}
- {{Obituary}}
- {{Off topic paragraph}}
- {{Off topic sentence}}
- {{Off-topic-inline}}
- {{Off-topic}}
- {{Off-topic}}
- {{One source}}
- {{Original research}}
- {{ORList}}
- {{Out of date}}
- {{Over detailed}}
- {{Overcolored}}
- {{Overlinked}}
- {{Page numbers improve}}
- {{Page numbers needed}}
- {{Peacock term}}
- {{Peacock}}
- {{Plot}}
- {{POV-lead}}
- {{Primary sources}}
- {{Pro and con list}}
- {{Prose}}
- {{Prune}}
- {{Puffery}}
- {{Quote farm}}
- {{Recategorize}}
- {{Ref improve section}}
- {{Ref quantity}}
- {{Refactor}}
- {{Refimprove}}
- {{Reflist-talk}}
- {{Refspam}}
- {{Registration required}}
- {{Relevance note}}
- {{Religion primary}}
- {{Religious text primary}}
- {{Repair coord}}
- {{Repetition}}
- {{Review}}
- {{RJL}}
- {{Say what?}}
- {{Schedule}}
- {{Section OR}}
- {{Section-diffuse}}
- {{Section-sort}}
- {{Sections}}
- {{Self-published}}
- {{Self-reference}}
- {{Spacing}}
- {{Specific time}}
- {{Specific}}
- {{Specify}}
- {{Speculation-inline}}
- {{Speculation}}
- {{Story}}
- {{Strawman}}
- {{Sub-sections}}
- {{Subscription required}}
- {{Summarize section}}
- {{Summarize}}
- {{Summary style}}
- {{Symbolism}}
- {{Syn}}
- {{Sync}}
- {{Synthesis}}
- {{Tagged}}
- {{Technical}}
- {{Term paper}}
- {{Textbook}}
- {{Time references needed}}
- {{Time-context}}
- {{ToLCleanup}}
- {{Tone-inline}}
- {{Tone}}
- {{Too abstract}}
- {{Too many photos}}
- {{Too many references}}
- {{Too many see alsos}}
- {{Too-many-boxes}}
- {{Translate quote}}
- {{Travel guide}}
- {{Trivia}}
- {{Uncategorized}}
- {{Unclear date}}
- {{Undue}}
- {{Unlinked references}}
- {{Unreferenced section}}
- {{Unreferenced-law}}
- {{Unreferenced}}
- {{Unreferenced2}}
- {{Unreliable sources}}
- {{Update after}}
- {{Update}}
- {{Vague}}
- {{Very long}}
- {{Volume needed}}
- {{Weasel-inline}}
- {{Where is it}}
- {{Wikify}}
Tagging proposal
|
---|
Taken from Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Cleanup templates -- almost as bad as ads; reduction ideas? My proposal for replacing the existing tagging structure Perhaps the various tags could be replaced with icons located to the immediate right of the article title. What I envisage is icons of the same font size as the article title, and in the form of a relevant image covered by a red crossed circle. The nature of each icon may be stated as alternative text (e.g. "This article needs..."). To avoid too many such icons, the current tags could be simplified down to a handful. For example, the orphan and dead end tags could be subsumed into a insufficient links icon. And all the references, refimprove, unreferenced, references-blp tags, some of which duplicate each other, could be subsumed into a insufficient references icon. When adding an icon, an editor could be forced to enter a concern parameter indicating what is wrong. The concern, (in either WP:USETEMP or tag form) could then be automatically entered into the talk page. Once saved, each icon may then act as a link to the relevant section in the talk page. After all, shouldn't these sorts of tags be on the talk page. Isn't that what the talk page is for. How many times have we come across a tagged article and found that the talk page hasn't yet been created or if it has, it was only to add it to a WikiProject. The obvious criticism I can see of this idea is that icons may be less noticeable than tags. However, considering how dominating tags can be, almost anything would be less noticeable. Nonetheless, I think readers would soon notice these icons as they wouldn't appear identically on every page if at all. And, of course, serving the same function as tags, they'd still add articles to hidden categories. LordVetinari (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC) I just re-read User:Shanes/Why tags are evil and it seems he already mentioned icons there. Must have been at the back of my mind when I thought of the idea described above. Thought I'd add this in case I get accused of stealing ideas. LordVetinari (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I was asked by CobraWiki to give my views on this. I believe strongly that turning tags meant for editors into small icons would be an improvement. Tags that warn readers about factual controversy or bias are ok, I think. But all those "fix-me" tags nagging about whatever someone felt like nagging about is not worth the distraction and article ugliness the big boxes bring. The style manual states that articles should begin with defining or explaining the topic. These tags goes against that. In general I'd like article space to be for the readers, and complaints or suggestions to editors on how to improve an article should be made on the talk page, not with big flashy boxes on top of the article. --Shanes (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
So, umm, I'm not very familiar with this whole Village Pump process. What usually happens next? I'm thinking of moving this discussion to its own page in my userspace so that we can find it more easily. It looks a little lost on this page. LordVetinari (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
|
This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClaretAsh/Maintenance_templates. |