| Revision as of 23:05, 25 March 2007 editChriscf (talk | contribs)5,611 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:17, 26 March 2007 edit undoAfter Midnight (talk | contribs)Administrators72,264 edits my thoughtsNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ::The second seems sensible (with the obvious exception of "List of ..."). The first, however, is totally unworkable. You're essentially saying that if I come across an article with two cleanup tags on it, and it happens to fail NPOV, I can't tag it as such. ] <small>] </small> 23:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | ::The second seems sensible (with the obvious exception of "List of ..."). The first, however, is totally unworkable. You're essentially saying that if I come across an article with two cleanup tags on it, and it happens to fail NPOV, I can't tag it as such. ] <small>] </small> 23:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I agree that too many boxes are distracting, but I think that 3 is probably a better limit than 2. I would suggest that if more are needed that they should be directed to the talk page of the article. One other thing to think about is the use of these on stubs vs. more established articles. Often stubs have many boxes early on that are placed by new page patrollers, so if the goal is to impact this behavior, the NPP community should probably be involved in this discussion. --] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:17, 26 March 2007
I have proposed a policy proposal on Misplaced Pages:Readability that contains two provisions. The proposal is here. Feel free to discuss them on this page.
The policy proposal is also posted on Village pump. Wooyi 22:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really like the first provision. Some articles/sections need a lot of work. I would support it if the number was higher, like no more than 3. If an article needs 4 cleanup templates, it could just use {{rewrite}}. As for the second provision, I can't think of many examples of this. Most articles that have really long lists are lists and most articles with a ton of external links can usually have most of them removed as spam. If most of the article consists of external links, the whole article could probably be PROD-ed or taken to AfD as its probably all spam. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The second seems sensible (with the obvious exception of "List of ..."). The first, however, is totally unworkable. You're essentially saying that if I come across an article with two cleanup tags on it, and it happens to fail NPOV, I can't tag it as such. Chris cheese whine 23:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that too many boxes are distracting, but I think that 3 is probably a better limit than 2. I would suggest that if more are needed that they should be directed to the talk page of the article. One other thing to think about is the use of these on stubs vs. more established articles. Often stubs have many boxes early on that are placed by new page patrollers, so if the goal is to impact this behavior, the NPP community should probably be involved in this discussion. --After Midnight 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)