Wikipedia talk:Editor tags

message: Tags saying that the article is factually inaccurate or highly POV should not be in a a way in which only editors can understand them. Those tags are important, they warn readers and tell them to not read the article. If they do, then they'll get false information. --Hottentot
: I agree. (Well, the tags remind them to read WP, like everything else on the net and possibly everything else period, with a critical eye.) They should be like a big honking stopsign to the reader.  This makes them virtually invisible, and puts WP jargon in place of an actual explanation. 
:Maybe people are too happy to slap tags on articles left right & centre, without ever stopping to actually try and improve an article, but I have to say this is going way too far in the other direction. pfctdayelise 13:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a really bad idea 

message: Somebody decided that this discussion should be fractured among here and two separate RFC pages that are supposed to link to comments. I'm moving it all here. Radiant_>|< 01:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't like this approach to the extent it is related to substantive dispute tags, b/c the casual reader will not know what's going on and it suggests the Talk page is in dispute as opposed to the article itself.  Australia's alleged East Timor cover up was on my watch list, and when I saw your test change my first thought was that a proponent of the article's PoV was unilaterally trying to coverup the dispute.  Your approach is OK for things like cleanup, stub, wikify, etc.--FRS 15:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with FRS, I can see this being useful for the maintenance-type tags (wikify, cleanup), which are really for editors only, but tags such as NPOV, which provide information to the readers also, should be prominent. --bainer (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cleanup tags should be prominent too: they indicate to casual readers that Wikipedia is aware of its shortcomings.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 06:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More comments 

message: While users Netholic, Hottentot, and Pfctdayelise have used terms like "heavy opposition", and "apparently rejected" by a "strong majority," these are of course partisan comments about their own partisan views, so its best to first summarise the above specific criticisms:
 # Template messages should be bigger! - 
 ## Too small!
 ## Readers should read (and understand) them, not just editors 
 ### Not appropriate for NPOV / POV tags (OK for others)
 ### Appears to "cover up" any disputes 
 ### "Suggests the talk page is in dispute as opposed to the article itself."
 ### "They should be like a big honking stopsign to the reader"
 ### "they warn readers and tell them to not read the article." 
 #### "If they do, then they'll get false information."
 # "Messes up categorizations"
 # I dont like it!
Thats the summary. Sounds like BS to me. -St|eve 20:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nice that you're so civil about it, but perhaps you could just try addressing some of their criticisms, which sound entirely reasonable to me. Ambi 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had thought they were mostly ridiculous on their surface, but I can address the valid ones if you like: -St|eve 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: ==== Template messages should be bigger! / Too small! ====
# Readers should read (and understand) them, not just editors 
# "They should be like a big honking stopsign to the reader"
# "they warn readers and tell them to not read the article." 
## "If they do, then they'll get false information."
*Disagree. 1) Process templates can be overused 2) Templates should not be an obstruction to the article 3) Process templates are distinct from disclaimers -- process templates are intended solely for editors whom are a relative minority compared to readers (wikipedias general disclaimers apply). -St|eve 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major points 

message: # Readers should read (and understand) them, not just editors 
# "They should be like a big honking stopsign to the reader"
# "they warn readers and tell them to not read the article." 
## "If they do, then they'll get false information."
*Disagree. 1) Process templates can be overused 2) Templates should not be an obstruction to the article 3) Process templates are distinct from disclaimers -- process templates are intended solely for editors whom are a relative minority compared to readers (wikipedias general disclaimers apply). -St|eve 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template messages should be bigger! / Too small! 

message: # Appears to "cover up" any disputes 
* Disagree. The tag is sufficient to both 1) show there is an existing dispute and 2) offer a "keyword" for the specific nature of the dispute -St|eve 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not appropriate for NPOV / POV tags (OK for others) 

message: # "Suggests the talk page is in dispute as opposed to the article itself."
# "Messes up categorizations"
* Disagree - moving a template to an article's talk page does not change its reference to an article itself, as the relationship between article and its talk page are common knowledge. -St|eve 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other concerns 

message: Editing issues:
Neutral point of view (discuss)
These templates seem like they would be awkward to use.  It would be simpler to link subpages of an article's talk page, and it would be helpful to link policy pages... how does this look?  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 06:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It still makes it easy to overlook. If there's a prevailing reason why I shouldn't take information on a particular page as being at least somewhat accurate and neutral, I'd like to know about it. This is better than the atrocious proposal there at the moment, but how is a little side box saying "neutral point of view" going to help someone not an editor - it really does need the highly visible "This article is not neutral" type header. Ambi 08:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplification 

message: Considering that everybody except Steve thinks this is a bad idea, I think we should simply reject the proposal and move on. Radiant_>|< 13:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reject proposal