| Revision as of 00:28, 26 March 2007 editSMcCandlish (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors201,791 editsm →Strong '''Oppose''' on both counts; misuse of template: No, sorry.← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:35, 26 March 2007 edit undoMinskist popper (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,302 edits →Strong '''Oppose''' on both counts; misuse of template: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| # I have removed the {{tl|Proposal}} tag. That is for entire documents with well-formed, compelete contents and rationales, that have already had broad community input and are believed ready by a significant number of editors for designation as a policy or guideline, not for random ideas-of-the-moment embedded somewhere in one-editor essays. Things like this should simply be discussed as topics ''in'' ]. :-) | # I have removed the {{tl|Proposal}} tag. That is for entire documents with well-formed, compelete contents and rationales, that have already had broad community input and are believed ready by a significant number of editors for designation as a policy or guideline, not for random ideas-of-the-moment embedded somewhere in one-editor essays. Things like this should simply be discussed as topics ''in'' ]. :-) | ||
| — <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> []] []]</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | — <span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">]</span> []] []]</span> <span style="color: #990000; font-weight: bold;">ツ</span> 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :'''Comment''' sorry for the misuse of template, I wasn't aware of that. Regarding to the list articles, I have just made that exception in the proposal. And also while some warning boxes are needed, it impairs a reader's interest to read it, as that he would think "oh this article is so bad i will come back and read it after it gets revised", and nothing gets done. I do agree that the limit number might raise to 3 though. ] 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:35, 26 March 2007
Introductory comments
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)
Strong Oppose on both counts; misuse of template
- Dispute and cleanup tags exist for a reason, to vividly identify article problems and attract readers to fix them. There is no reason to limit the number of problems to be identified. This is like saying that if you get robbed 5 times in one month, you just have to STFU after 2 police reports. The argument that "it makes the articles" ugly is of no consequence. The point is to make the articles ugly to inspire action to clean them up, and to alert readers potentially depending on the article that they should be cautious, about what, and why.
- Many articles are lists. I don't know what else to say. If this proposal went through, List of World Snooker Champions would have to be deleted or reduced to a couple of sentences about the concept, but no lists of the champions, or filled with endless streams of non-encyclopedic blather to meet the proposed ratio requirement.
- I have removed the {{Proposal}} tag. That is for entire documents with well-formed, compelete contents and rationales, that have already had broad community input and are believed ready by a significant number of editors for designation as a policy or guideline, not for random ideas-of-the-moment embedded somewhere in one-editor essays. Things like this should simply be discussed as topics in WP:VPP. :-)
— SMcCandlish ツ 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment sorry for the misuse of template, I wasn't aware of that. Regarding to the list articles, I have just made that exception in the proposal. And also while some warning boxes are needed, it impairs a reader's interest to read it, as that he would think "oh this article is so bad i will come back and read it after it gets revised", and nothing gets done. I do agree that the limit number might raise to 3 though. Wooyi 00:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)