Template talk:Tone

message: Can this be renamed  or something? — Omegatron 06:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: writing  has the same effect --FlareNUKE 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well I think not 68.80.2.130 (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: "This article or section seems not to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry."
Can we change it to something like This article or section does not seem to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry. or something less awkward? The current wording really makes me mad. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 14:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: This tag advertises at the head of the article the editor's vague personal opinion that the style isn't right, and links to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles which only mentions tone once, in the context of the option (NOT requirement) of using News style, which itself gives little or no guidance about "tone". There's a case for listing articles for cleanup to draw in help, and this can usefully be done with tags on the talk pages of articles, but this tag on the article itself is at best an irritation and insult to editors who have put considerable effort into improving the article. If you see faults in the article, the best things to do are to edit it, or draw attention on the talk page to exactly what problem you find. Wikipedia can have a problem with knowledgeable or expert editors being driven away by the stress and tediousness of dealing with vandalism and pov pushing. Use of this tag, while no doubt well intentioned, has the same effect and can be more damage than help. I'll try to think of ways of rewording this tag, possibly along the more neutral lines of cleanup with an indication that it should go on the talk page. It should perhaps be added that this came up in the context of it being added to articles which arguably are lively and interesting, but which had been admired as an improvement or asset by very experienced editors.  ...dave souza, talk 12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unwelcome annoyance without useful advice

message: As various editors have pointed out, there is no guidance as to the mysterious "tone" or official requirement for this "tone" to meet some editor's tastes. This is something that can be discussed on the talk page of the guide to writing better articles, not a vague label to stick on articles where you personally don't like the style. ..dave souza, talk 19:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is rather clear; it is certainly much clearer than "improvement in writing style", which could mean just about anything. Encyclopedic tone does not mean simply "well-written". Don't revert to implement a change that everyone but you has disagreed with. —Centrx→talk • 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If the editor cleaning up thinks it is in an encyclopedic tone, they can just remove the tag. A whole policy page is not needed for every little quality tag. —Centrx→talk • 17:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is inappropriate tone?

message: This article could benefit from improvement in writing style to reach the quality described in the guide to writing the perfect article.Please improve the article or discuss proposed changes on the talk page. Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles gives further suggestions.<noinclude>
In my opinion this proposed tag alerts editors to the opinion that improvement is needed in a positive way, and as discussed above editors who have a particular issue with "tone" can add a comment to the talk page clarifying their concern rather than leaving authors to hunt in vain for guidance or possibly giving the impression that a critic is attacking their writing abilities. ..dave souza, talk 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed revised tag

message: I would like to request that the "article or section" language be updated with optional data field parameter. Most cleanup templates provide this option.  Specifically, should be "article or section". Thank you,  Satori Son 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Luna Santin 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested edit: "article or section" parameter 

message: I added a generic description of formal tone to the Guide to writing better articles in the Other issues section. This should help address the fact that this template sent people on a wild goose chase looking for guidance. It basically just says to follow WP:RS:
:; Formal tone : Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. The standards for formal tone will vary depending on the subject matter, but should follow the style typically used by reliable sources in the subject area. Formal tone does not mean that the article should be written in unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or that it should be filled with jargon; it simply means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. Dhaluza 11:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal tone 

message: Would an admin please edit this protected template to wikilink formal tone as in . Dhaluza 02:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wikilink "formal tone" to WP:TONE Dhaluza 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thinking, have done the latter. ...... dave souza, talk 09:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Please remove  from see also as it is deprecated. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, Garion96 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: The text presently reads:
This article or section is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.Please improve it or discuss changes on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.
The lack of boldness is off-putting. It should probably be:
This article or section is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.Please improve it or discuss changes on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.
Could an admin fix this? --Elyscape 11:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding weirdness 

message: please remove the Template:Not verified and Template:Unsourced from the see also section as they redirect to other listed templates.  additionally please use Wikipedia:Transclusion for the non-template content of this template. Jeepday (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General Clean up

message: This template should have a mandatory talk page section parameter. Otherwise it's just another pastel box that doesn't help anyone fix the problem. Shinobu (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to talk page section 

message: 
Please add the tracking category :Category:All articles needing style editing between the includeonly tags. Thanks. MER-C 08:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Y Done - Nihiltres{t.l} 12:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracking category 

message: to  for consistency? Stevage 03:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that's already a redirect, I think it's okay to leave it as it is.  In fact, this template has nine different redirects to it  that should cover all the bases.  — Satori Son 14:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it has a redirect. That's no reason not to rename something. The main issue is which name shows up in :Category:Cleanup templates. Stevage 03:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename... 

message: Format the date just like the other cleanup templates. To do this, replace:
suggestions.</span>
With:
suggestions. </span>
This will add a space after the period and before the date, and it will show the date italicized rather than bold, to conform with the other cleanup templates. Gary King (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Soxπed93(blag) 03:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format the date 

message: Change:
Specific concerns may be found on the talk page.  See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. 
To:
Specific concerns may be found on the talk page.  See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. 
To get the same font size as other templates. Gary King (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Soxπed93(blag) 19:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct font size 

message: I've made some tweaks to the template style in the new sandbox to match similar templates. Just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done The Helpful One 21:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re-enabling for a few more tweaks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks,  PeterSymonds (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style tweaks 

message: Specific concerns may be found on the talk page
This statement ought to serve two purposes - advice to the reader, but also advice to the person who places the template.  As such, might it be better to say "should be listed" instead of "may be found".  Because often, templates like this get placed without a list of concerns being put on the talk page.  Regards, Ben Aveling 05:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO that's because frequently there's no need to elaborate; the issue is evident from a cursory look at the article. If the problem is more subtle, for instance the occasional but still fairly heavy use of sympathetic phrasing, it can be discussed on talk. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been noticing more and more that maintenance tags are being used without explaination, and occasionally as a form of "scarlet letter" against articles\other editors whith whom the attaching editor has some sort of grievance against. Regardless of that though, what may seem obvious to one person may not seem at all obvious to another (especially, as often seems to be the case with these templates, if there is some POV conflict). Clarifying the language as Ben advocates here is a start, but we should also attach a parameter to all of these maintenance templates in order to link directly to a talk page section. I would even go so far as to create a warning message if the parameter is not used, but that's likely a minority idea.— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the minority is at least two! I find this template far more problematic for the encyclopedia than any improvements it seems to engender. It is useless remarking about "tone" unless someone is going to do something about it. In my view the tagger is just as well placed as anyone else to improve matters. At the very least the tagger should give guidance about what he finds problematic. I often come across this tag and can only see that the article is somewhat conversational yet may be entirely satisfactory in conveying information. So yes, more detail should always be associated with this tag. Sorry about all that! An article I had a bit to do with was tagged and I wish the tagger had put in the effort to do something about it. Thincat (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  may be found 

message: What is the correct flag when an article says "recently" about something that is now months or years old?  How about when a paragraph begins with "later" (or "earlier") and there is no clear time period for this to refer to?  The best tag I have found is , but I would rather something that clearly said it's a time issue.    Randall Bart    Talk   20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See . --Thnidu (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  time issues 

message: Seems we need to clarify the wording on this template.  The first sentence currently reads:
I propose:
Thus rather than using the generic I-don't-like-it term of "not appropriate", we're saying why it doesn't work as it stands, and saying what the proper use is.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And done.  Now suggesting a move from  to  for the same reason.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no - let's make the move target .  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better - just , to keep it simple.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And done.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording change 

message: This template contains a link to an essay which may not be mandatory nor be reliable to be obeyed. It is neither a guideline nor policy. I wonder if there are other alternatives to an essay. --George Ho (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had a quick look - the link was added in 2005 and since then, people have mentioned updating the essay in response to concerns raised on this talk page in the past. Many people seem to have been involved in editing Wikipedia:Writing better articles as well. So I think that to remove the link could be controversial and it would need more of a consensus. Hence, I'll deactivate the request for now. Tra (Talk) 09:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, either RFC or "Village pump (proposal)", correct? --George Ho (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, either of those would probably get some more participation. It's also worth raising the issue on Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles to get input from people involved with that page. Tra (Talk) 14:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked to an essay? 

message: I don't have a proposal yet, so I wonder what to do with this template. The essay that was linked within this template is neither a policy nor guideline nor considered to be recommended. Are there any policy, how-tos, guideline, or any other consensus-accepted ones related to this template? --George Ho (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems no-one has commented so... what's your preference? Do you want to keep it how it is, have the link taken out, or did you find anything else to replace it? Tra (Talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I have lost interest, and essays may be good advices. What is yours? --George Ho (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really mind so much. The wording of the template "see...for suggestions" doesn't imply that that the page has any weight so I'm happy to just leave it as it is. Tra (Talk) 21:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing this template? 

message: where it is:
Wikipedia:Writing better articles
please replace with:
Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Tone
Fgnievinski (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "tone" already links to there. Do we really need both links to point there? Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't even noticed that word was linked; it could even be unlinked if necessary. From a user experience point of view, we should improve the one link that users are being told to follow. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 14 July 2014 

message: It is necessary to add another link to WP:Tone. On pages such as this one, the template appears in an abbreviated form and does not include any links to relevant policies or guidelines. This suggested link has already been included in the template's sandbox, so it should added in this template as well.
Jarble (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this would read better with the wikilink in the middle of the bolded text, rather than at the beginning: This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. Thoughts? -- John of Reading (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this would be easier to understand. Jarble (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  -- John of Reading (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 7 July 2015 

message: (Following 's suggestion, I'm copying this here from Wikipedia talk:Teahouse # To subst or not to subst.)
----
Template:Tone/doc has the following sequence at and just after the end of the top section (with the TOC between them in reading view):
: Note: This template is a self-reference, and .
: Usage
: or 
Those can't both be right. On the assumption that the explicit instruction is correct and the  example results from an editing error, I'm deleting the latter. But since I don't know what, if anything, is supposed to be in its place, I'm bringing the question here. Please  me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  To subst or not to subst 

message: 
This is a courtesy to other editors to ease annoyance of navigation. I would already have added it myself but the template is locked. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone with admin permission, please add this navigation hatnote 

message: This seems like a template that should really need one. It has 29 invalid uses already.
I've made the associated changes in the sandbox and testcases pages. Requesting copy and paste. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 04:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add reason parameter 

message: Through experimentation, I found that the |talk= field of this template is only displayed properly in the banner if this template is not grouped within :Template:Multiple issues. Should that be added to the template's documentation? (Or maybe I was just doing something incorrectly...) Schazjmd (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is normal; to avoid overloading the top of the article, many of the warning templates display in an abbreviated form when used inside  -- John of Reading (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  When used in Template:Multiple issues 

message: *  (asterisk denoting a pause in musical notation)
* 
* 
* 
* 
Yes, it's kind of a visual pun, but also more elegant and eye-catching for users to perhaps notice slightly more and thus help the "tone" of the article. Plus, beauty matters. 
My favorite is probably a tie of #1 and #3. All but 1 are perhaps too literally musical and maybe the .svg broom could be added to the corner like in first proposal, but idk. The last depicts more of a "falling tone" too suggesting a poorer article, but also looks harsher. I just believe this, and similar cleanup templates that share the generic broom, need to change. Yea or Nay?--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 17:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New icon for template proposals