Wikipedia talk:Boilerplate text

message: Is it considered detrimental to the Wikipedia for people to include links to WikiProjects at the bottom of article pages?  I, for one, never would have considered the WikiProject U.S. States if I hadn't seen a link at the bottom of the State articles.
Mav is of the opinion that these notes aren't appropriate for Wiki pages, and he may be right.  This is the comment he posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject French departements, along with some responses I've inserted:
*When potential readers see it, they may feel obligated to visit and agree to the WikiProject in order to contribute.
:You have to balance that against the harm of potential users who see a new page and have no idea how to contribute.  Some articles are already well laid out, and people will feel uncomfortable adding to them without some idea of their structure.
*Talk is a page for comments about how to improve the article. The article namespace is not a good place for this.
:In theory, Talk is the best place for all meta info.  However, we tend to include important info in the article (disambiguation notes, for instance), because people don't immediately go to the Talk page for this stuff.  This is particularly true of inexperienced users.
*Whenever we make articles we should try to make it as useful to readers as possible. Ugly tags detract from the article and are not intended for mere readers anyway; WikiProject tags are for contributors who want to majorly add to a set of articles. These people will visit talk anyway.
:On the contrary.  I've been here for a while so I know all about the WikiProjects.  New users are the people who need the WikiProject tags.  The worst you can say about them is that they give an impression that the article is a work-in-progress; this is hardly objectionable when the article is in fact very incomplete.  The tags can be removed once the article reaches a certain level of maturity.  They can be removed automatically if they follow a certain format.
*These tags are self-conscience and considerations on how Wikipedia articles will look in print form are important (these tags will have to be removed before a print version is made, so it is best to limit their use).
:This is another "Wikipedia should look great now" at the expense of its future development.  Who cares how an article looks in print, if it's incomplete and useless?  The tags can be removed once the article has been made worth printing.
*WikiProjects are for a set of users to agree on a set of guidelines. Nobody else is bound by those guidelines. However the tag implies that those guidelines should be followed in order to contribute. This is very unwiki.
:It seems that your objection is with WikiProjects themselves rather than simply the idea of adding links.  WikiProjects clearly state that they're just a set of guidelines.  If this is unclear, then it should be made so in the link.
*The major WikiProjects (Countries, Elements and Sports) do not have these type of tags in articles (the talk pages od converted element articles mention who did the conversion and that the conversion was based on WikiProject Elements). 
:Complete pages don't need these tags anymore.  Just incomplete ones like the auto-generated U.S. towns articles Ram-Man is currently adding.  A lot of people are going to hit these carefully laid out, but woefully incomplete articles and be intimidated into not contributing.  WikiProjects might give them a way forward.  So long as the WikiProjects are clearly marked as being suggestions and not requirements.
Reaction: I have the feeling that these will give a way backward rather than forward. Imagining myself as a beginning Wikipedia-user, I don't see what's intimidating about having a page with some subheadings already put in that I would not contribute to it. However, if a page says "This page is part of Wiki-project so-and-so", I assume that there are some people working on these things, who will probably rather not be disturbed by my changes as they do a lot of more work on all these cities. And I (still as a new Wikipedian) don't have the courage or don't have the knowledge to really do a lot on this project, so I just leave this page to those WikipediaProject people too for the time being. Besides, I'd have to go through those project-rules first too. If that is not enough to intimidate someone, then a bit of text and some subheaders should also cause no problems. Andre Engels 16:33 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)
: I envisioned something along the lines of "This page was generated by a computer program and probably needs a lot of work.  If you need suggestions, visit WikiProject U.S. Cities".  I was hoping that wouldn't be intimidating. Dachshund
While I was originally of the idea to put these boilerplates in the articles themselves (In fact I put hundreds and maybe thousands of them in), I changed my view when confronted about it.  In essence, they do not belong in an encyclopedia article.  Nevertheless, I am still somewhat split.  I am all about articles having a similar look so that they are consistant.  That is always a good thing.  Those users who are new will come in and add a line here or there.  If someone wants to write a whole article, let them do so.  Someone else can later bring it into a format consistant with the wikiproject.  If someone is that motivated, there is a good chance that they already know about the wikiprojects anyway.  And we can always *tell* them.  Leave them in the talk pages.  They can still be found.  Oh, having the boilerplates artificially increases the byte count of articles (For what its worth). -- Ram-Man
I'm inclined to agree with Andre.
So long as the article is incomplete enough that the WikiProject guidelines still have a strong potential impact on its future development, then it's reasonable to give the impression that the article is still being worked on by that jarring, unprofessional tag ^_^.
— Toby 17:10 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)
I feel like revisiting this. Didn't realize this discussion was so old. I've been a serious contributor to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life pages. Part of our discussion of taxoboxes included considering putting a link to the relevant projects in the taxobox. Although I was (and still am) for the notion of having a link to the Projects in the article someplace, I'm even more interested in having te sidebar indicate that the work put into the article was done at least partly with the consideration of the guidelines of a Project. - UtherSRG 02:22, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProjects 

message: The longest of the boilerplates for disambiguation had a semicolon which i just replaced with a comma, to keep the noun phrase following it ("that is, one that just points to other pages that might otherwise have the same name") from being a sentence fragment.  
But to come to the point, i am nearly as certain that the inner dependent clause in that noun phrase ("that might otherwise have the same name") is a statement contrary to fact and that its mode should therefore be subjunctive.  IMO that follows from the fact that the statement "it might be" is contradicted by the statement "it isn't".  If something has something else in some of the cases under discussion, then it might have the other thing in any particular (but as yet unspecified) case.  In our situation, "other pages ..." never "... have the same name" bcz that would violate our basic software design, and our software is well enough implemented to prevent it. 
Unless someone finds me so finicky that they object to the markup 
:This is a disambiguation page, that is, one that just points to other pages that might otherwise have had the same name. If you followed a link here, you might want to go back and fix that link to point to the appropriate specific page.
which will produce 
:This is a disambiguation page, that is, one that just points to other pages that might otherwise have had the same name. If you followed a link here, you might want to go back and fix that link to point to the appropriate specific page. 
i propose to edit Wikipedia:Boilerplate text#Disambiguation accordingly. --Jerzy 18:23, 2003 Oct 30 (UTC)
Does one still have to add the link to Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages or Wikipedia:Multiple-place names if one uses the  tag? gracefool 10:57, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation Boilerplate 

message: Can I put in a request that we make it an encouraged practice for external links to be more than just the raw URL, and include a proper written-out title whenever possible. For example, instead of just:
http://www.geocities.com/RodeoDrive/4044/fullhorn.html
which is essentially gobbledy-gok, how about
Online Guide to Buffalo Nickels
The first one provides just about no information about where the reader is headed if they click the link, which I think is bad editorial practice. Whaddya think? Could we/should we tweak the boilerplate to reflect the need for better link labels? jengod 00:07, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It would be good to remind of people of this. Angela. 06:24, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Jengod, I am not sure why you posted this comment here -- I only came across it accidently -- but I am 110% in agreement. I consider bare URL's extremely reader unfriendly and I regularly pester people about this by fixing them and adding this text to the  edit summary: For external link: give meaningful title instead of bare URL. I also added a text on this matter to: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style#URL_and_World_Wide_Web_style -- Viajero 10:37, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, in the name of editorial clarity, I'm goin' in! jengod 22:28, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard for External Links

message: I think a boilerplate for dangerous stunts should be added.  For example, donkey punch is written as though it is a sex act that people actually do; but it is both dangerous and illegal, and I have heard of no cases of anyone actually doing such a thing.  I think it might be appropriate to have a warning label on all such entries, like sword-swallowing or the like.  Eric Herboso  02:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for New Boilerplate 

message: Do you mean that a boilerplate should be made kind of like a "Do not try this at home" warning? --Ironchef8000 23:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  That seems like a good idea 

message: Shouldn't there be some rules about where Boilerplate text boxes go?
Like "vfd", "delete", "attention", "cleanup", "#REDIRECT", "POV", should always go at the top?
And; "disambig", should go at the bottom? 
What are the rules. I put "cleanup" at the top, and someone came along and moved it to the bottom of the article.
WikiDon 04:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to Put the Boilerplate Text box? 

message: When making revisions to the page, please try not to repeat information already created. Also, whoever has been working on the page, please clean it up. There are four or five "See Also" sections, most of which repeat each other. When editing an article, please try to keep it clean and organized. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.147.203 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean the article up please 

message: I think the warning, npov, etc. banners should be standardized. It seems like most of them say the same thing, but look slightly different. Standards, my friends, are key parts of any organized system, in this case Wikipedia. Actually, it's pretty ironic that the article "standard" isn't even standardized (I think you guys call it "wikified," right?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzform (talk • contribs) 05:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codification 

message: There seems to be a problem. Now, dont get me wrong, I think that people adding to wikipedia is great. However it needs to be put in the proper section. Boilerplate Text is the decal/logo things that appear at the top of a page (Neutrality, Current Event, etc). Boilerplate text is not just any formatting. Please try to clean up this article and to only add what is appropriate. Thank you.  --Ironchef8000 23:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What actually belongs in this article... 

message: This page is a mess. It has an incomplete smattering of useful templates which overlaps with Wikipedia:Cleanup resources and Wikipedia:Template messages.  I don't think it's helpful to new editors to have things so hard to find.  I think this page should be purged of anything already included on one of those other pages, and listed as a "see also" link from them. -- Beland 09:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objections, I implemented my proposal. The edit of mine before the template purge has a much cleaner version of the page, if anyone cares to revert. -- Beland 03:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page cleanup 

message: Post this text in the footnotes or at the top of the text.
Used under the fair use policy of the United States copyright law, and under Wikipedia fair use policy See also: What is "Fair Use" in Copyright Law?
----
I removed this notice because I have never seen this used for text, and in fact, it should not be.  Any quotations should simply cite their sources.  There are far too many quotations for each one to get a legal notice like this, and these notices are unnecessary. -- Beland 03:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use notice for text

message: A lot of the remaining content was an incomplete version of Wikipedia:How to edit a page, so I removed the overlap and left a pointer.  -- Beland 03:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After that, there wasn't much left, so the remainder has been merged with more complete pages.  A lot of new user messages still link here, though, so this page may need to be kept around as a list of helpful links.  (Though perhaps eventually it will be untangled.) -- Beland 03:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further cleanup

message: I realised not long ago that when someone says "boilerplate text" I have no idea what they're talking about, so I came here. But even this page does not explain what the term means. I understand that the page is possibly defunct now, due to "an explosion of templates and wiki syntax" but perhaps someone could write a sentence or two explaining the term "boilerplate text" on the page? --Qirex 12:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A certain omission noticed... 

message: This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 19 June 2006.  The result was Keep, tag as historical. Xoloz 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD Result Notice

message: Are boilerplate messages obsolete or something (which I don't think they are, cause I see them everywhere), or is this just something nobody feels like talking about?  Nineteenninetyfour 21:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: 
This historical page is currently found in :Category:Pages needing attention, because an old version of  was subst'd into the text (in the section "This page needs attention").  The category link should be deleted; it is not visible to readers and serves no purpose.  --Russ (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Y Commented out –  13:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: The section Wikipedia:Boilerplate_text#This_article_lacks_detail_and_needs_to_be_expanded is dedicated to the long-since deleted template , and so should be removed. User:GKFXtalk 19:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page is marked as historical, so we probably shouldn't fiddle with it. If it was a current page then I'd fulfil this request, but I'm not sure it's the right course of action here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: People will often skim text to get to the center of the matter, especially if they are overwhelmed, in a new environment, or both. I'm currently working on  Wikipedia:Glossary#B, and I will remove its link to this page. But for the sake of newcomers (although not that many of them would arrive here), I suggest the following edits directly on this page {removals struck through and changes in bold, with all being in the "white space" intro area, not the message boxes}:
:Note: Since this page is no longer in use, see Help:Template or WP:WikiProject Templates instead. You can also see Wikipedia:Questions or visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. 
:This page is was designed to provide simple "copy and paste" versions of text which is was very commonly used, but where using a Template is was unnecessary.
:This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it.
My suggested edits for the "This page..." paragraph are not as important in my view as adding the note and removing the line that calls for new participation. Thanks for whatever decision you make! --Geekdiva (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request: Making the disuse of this page more newcomer-friendly 

message: Please remove :Category:Wikipedia templates from this page and change it to :Category:Wikipedia template management. That category is for templates, not lists of templates. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 22:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 31 May 2017 

message: Please add . —¿philoserf? (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: IANA shortdesc expert, but, uh, this isn't a "historical document" it's an old project page.  Assuming something is desired, I would think a more accurate description would be warranted; "historical project page" or something. ~  Amory (u • t • c) 03:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I see you've gone and applied this description to a few dozen pages already, even overriding an already-existing short description in one case.  I don't think  is an improvement or even accurate. ~  Amory (u • t • c) 03:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , That’s okay. I wasn’t married to my edit. Any editor with a better short description is welcomed. I just think these should be in the English encyclopedia where editors can see an improved them. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Done added  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 10 May 2020 

message: The page has two obsolete html tag Lint errors. It is in the first line of section 7.1 -
Under a ==Reference==  or  ==References== section:
The  tags are obsolete and must be replaced (see this). Please replace it with the following -
Under a ==Reference==  or  ==References== section:
 ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 09:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: — xaosflux Talk 17:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 1 April 2021