This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This essay was inspired by a talk-page comment by User:Beland at Talk:Competition law. I look forward to your comments and improvements. THF 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This personal essay contradicts WP:NPOVD and is an invitation for and a justification of drive-by tagging that attempts to excuse the tagger from participating constructively in page editing. Tag graffiti is a significant problem in Wikipedia. Better to follow the clear policies of NPOVD. Tagging articles is a POV issue. Tagging them and stating "This article is clearly POV" on the talk page is not sufficient, according to NPOVD which requires the productive discussion of specifics. Specifics, not as in, "I specifically said it was POV but I don't have the time to fix it" but more in line of "This sentence: 'blah' is an unsourced statement that is pushing a POV." ∴ Therefore talk 03:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This article contains some good advice. But I came here looking for a list of tags, so that I could choose the right one. I didn't find it. In fact, there is a link at the bottom that _looks_ like it's a link to the list I want, but returns tags that the software may add, not tags that I'm supposed to consider adding.
Unfortunately, instead of tagging the article I was going to tag, I need to leave and have breakfast. Thus I fear that this article is "noise" that clouds the "signal" of what helpful editors are really looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krobin ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Krobin you are totally right - this is REAL problem.
Editors absolutely NEED a definitive, up-to-date list of tags. I'm a pretty experienced computer user - I can find my way around most things given time, Why can't I find a proper tag list - I've googled... It should be on every edit page. There is something at Special:Tags and I only know this isn't it cos I notice there is (E.G.) no { { fact } } tag in the list
This is a good start, but needs a good pass of copyediting and clarification. Also, an essay needs to read as one, and not read as a guideline or quasi-policy. There are many good examples of well written essays, you may want to check these and get some ideas on how to improve this one. Until such time, I would avoid linking to it from policy or guidelines pages, which I have removed.
Some essays that I quite like: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Wikipedia:The_role_of_policies_in_collaborative_anarchy.
Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I do acknowledge tagging is fundamental in development of high-quality articles and certainly helps display the problems explicitly to uninvolved readers. However, I do believe that we need a more clearer policy on tagging and agree with the above user on this. It is really unhelpful if the tagger doesnt spend time explain the rationale and instead insist on tagging even if the author or authors of the article are willing to work with him or her. The distinction between un-oppsed drive-by tagging and cases where authors willing to work with the tagger needs to be made. Docku: “what up?” 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The practice of tagging in the article space should be proscribed on a basis of WP:V (see threshold for inclusion). Tagging constitutes meta-commentary about the current state of the article and therefore comprises talk content, not article content. Problems related to an article should be discussed on an article's talk page, not made to blight an article. Further, tagging should not be considered an acceptable substitute to editing the article or discussing article problems. Robert K S ( talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
User:UBX/Overtagging (UTC)
Also:
An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about. |
Ikip ( talk) 19:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I just ran across this essay and find the information important and deserving of community support. I sometimes place a tag on an article I run across in the course of other work. I do not troll to place tags and in fact have taken the position that unaddressed tags or long term tags should be removed. If there are issues and nothing is done then nothing can be fixed. I feel tags are necessary but should be accompanied by comments as to what led an editor to place the tag when the template is not clear. It certainly would be unreasonable to expect an editor to place a talk page comment on reasons for a tag that there are no references on an article. It is hard to even imagine stopping in the middle of work or research to address a problem that has come to light. Placing a tag not only calls attention to a problem it places the article on my watch list and I go over this from time to time. This means to me that tags do have an importance but there is also a need for an essay or guideline, especially important for newer users, to explain a community consensus on use. Otr500 ( talk) 14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
What would it take to get this essay (or some variation of it) turned into a guideline? (See WP:VPP proposal here.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Requesting a second opinion about whether Guthy-Renker warrants a tag (see discussion here). I brought the page up to GA while following COI best practices. In support of the tag, an editor says it's promotional to identify the article-subject by name in the article too frequently - I disagree. etc. Would appreciate someone taking a look. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I know I am not the only Wikipedian who finds it incomprehensible and maddening that there doesn't seem to be a complete list of Wikipedia tags. If there is, where is it, and why doesn't this help page link to it? If there isn't, why doesn't someone create one? (Don't tell me to do it, I don't know nearly enough about them.) I bet that if someone created such a list, it would immediately become one of the most frequently consulted Wikipedia help pages. Littlewindow ( talk) 23:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Related discussion on promoting the essay WP:TAGGING to Guideline status.
009o9 Disclosure (Talk) 15:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Given that I presume WP wants to be user-friendly, why is it so absurdly difficult to find basic instructions on how and where to insert a tag?! I've been editing on WP for a decade now, and I'm not exactly stupid, but every time I need to tag an article for WP:PROD or the like (which, to be fair, has only been 15-20 times), I have to go through a long process of searching for the specific instructions on how to do so. There seem to be dozens of pages about tags -- the variety of them, when they should be used, and so on -- but how about where to insert the tag(s), relative to the code on the page? At the top of every page, after one has clicked on "edit", there is the existing text and markup, which may include an infobox, redirect tags, "other uses", etc. Where is one supposed to insert the new tag? -above everything else? -below any existing tags but above any infobox? Really -- some simple instructions would be appreciated. And if that info already exists on some WP help page, damned if I can easily find it. Bricology ( talk) 18:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:TMC is the main repository for all the possible tags as far as I know, there isn't (and shouldn't be) another to confuse people more. Like all pages here, if there's something missing, anyone can add it to it.
While I commend you for being thorough, looking at your ten-step process just for tagging something, what you do can definitely be relaxed. There's a lot of inline tags but I really can't see the use of them in practice. Some of the tags are so specific and silly that I can't imagine why the tagger can fix such a problem in the same amount of time instead of searching for that specific tag. The more minor and specific a problem is, a tag for it for that situation seems more sillier. Take the instance of "Definition needed, Definition, Clarify, Ambiguous, How, Elucidate, Specify, or Vague", nearly all of them mean almost the same thing. Tagging is done with the sole purpose of alerting someone who can fix the problem when you can't; no one is going to check whether you tagged "correctly". Personally, I just know three inline tags, {{ cn}}, {{ who}} and {{ clarify}}--these apply to nearly all situations. You can always use just the talk page, the standard way of raising article issues; tagging is never something you ought to do--though you seem to do both. I personally don't think you should raise a citation needed issue (or any straightforward tag) on the talk, it's obvious what the problem is and it is assumed that you've failed the initial procedure of finding one and doubt its verifiability.
That's what I think, maybe that's why no one finds this such a big deal. What you've proposed isn't a bad idea, but really not urgent. Regarding better ways of doing some what you've mentioned above, there's Visual Editor. It has an easy way of inserting templates, even the basic search mode for it with it attempting to fetch the template description (depending if there's template data). For example, try adding "cn" using it. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 18:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Can you update the date? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 15:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
An RfC is underway that interested "watchers of this page" wound enhance by participating, I hope that many will! The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding "Ambox generated" maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 06:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
This essay contains lots of info about when to tag a page, but not how to do it.
I'm trying to do something fairly straightforward. I've found a very confusing Wikipedia page on Ata-Malik Juvayni. It contains no footnotes, but has five 'references' at the bottom numbered 1-5 as though there were footnotes in the text using those numbers.
In addition, these references seem to have nothing at all to do with the article. It is about a Persian historian, and they are about a Chinese general.
I know NOTHING about the topic myself, so can't even begin to fix it. I want to tag the page so that other editors are alerted to the problem. But the Wikipedia help pages direct me here, and this essay is not in any way helpful for the editor who simply wants to know HOW to do this as opposed to why and when it might be advisable to do so.
I would appreciate it if someone could help with this please. Liamcalling ( talk) 02:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that it's not intended as that, Redrose64, but that's the problem. When you go to the 'Help' pages to try to find "how-to" information you are directed here. And in fact I had followed many of the shortcuts on the page and stiil found myself being redirected back here because they are not clear either.
It's not just a problem with this page, really. In general, Wikipedia seems to be becoming less user-friendly; more and more designed for a (comparatively) small community of experienced editors who are familiar with the terminology and don't even notice the fact that some things might be near incomprehensible to the casual reader who wants to make a small improvement without spending a whole day on it. It wasn't always like this.
I might have another go later, or might just not bother. Thanks for your help. Liamcalling ( talk) 10:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear Liamcalling, and anyone else who might be stuck in the same rut as I was just now, I think I've figured it out. When editing an article, at least with the visual editor (the source editor is beyond me), there's an insert button on the toolbar. You can insert templates from there, including tag templates. I just added a copy edit template to an article from there. Hopefully this helps. Sincerely, VDizzleFoShizzle ( talk) 18:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday I stumbled upon an article that was loaded with ideological sounding language, presented as objective fact. It was vague and weaselly, and almost none of it was sourced. This is the article in question: History of capitalism. I wrought the most havoc in the "Varieties of Capitalism" section. I enthusiastically tagged every vaguery, weasel wording and lack of sources I could find, and did some constructive edits to the text itself too, however on this article I read that I'm not supposed to do that, that you should never use more than 2 or 3 tags on a single article. My question is then, what else am I supposed to do when people write articles like that? Should I just delete the text I don't like? I can't use the "this section uses no citations" (or whatever) thing, because sometimes they do use 1 source in that section, and I frankly don't have the time to edit long texts about topics I'm not that invested in myself, plus I'm not a very good writer or a very motivated one, yet sometimes I do see content that's bad and I wanna do something about it. Should I just turn the disputed text into a comment in the source code so it's out of sight but not gone? Dapperedavid ( talk) 13:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I assume tag means cleanup tags and maintenance tags. Are CSD/PROD/XFD tags included? I think ideally we would explain exactly what tags we mean in the lead, and/or wikilink the word "tag" to something. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I came to this page hoping to find what tag to use to suggest a page/section needs to be cleaned up for better grammar/English. Perhaps this page itself could be improved to help people find the tags they need to use. Rebroad ( talk) 11:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This essay was inspired by a talk-page comment by User:Beland at Talk:Competition law. I look forward to your comments and improvements. THF 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This personal essay contradicts WP:NPOVD and is an invitation for and a justification of drive-by tagging that attempts to excuse the tagger from participating constructively in page editing. Tag graffiti is a significant problem in Wikipedia. Better to follow the clear policies of NPOVD. Tagging articles is a POV issue. Tagging them and stating "This article is clearly POV" on the talk page is not sufficient, according to NPOVD which requires the productive discussion of specifics. Specifics, not as in, "I specifically said it was POV but I don't have the time to fix it" but more in line of "This sentence: 'blah' is an unsourced statement that is pushing a POV." ∴ Therefore talk 03:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This article contains some good advice. But I came here looking for a list of tags, so that I could choose the right one. I didn't find it. In fact, there is a link at the bottom that _looks_ like it's a link to the list I want, but returns tags that the software may add, not tags that I'm supposed to consider adding.
Unfortunately, instead of tagging the article I was going to tag, I need to leave and have breakfast. Thus I fear that this article is "noise" that clouds the "signal" of what helpful editors are really looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krobin ( talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Krobin you are totally right - this is REAL problem.
Editors absolutely NEED a definitive, up-to-date list of tags. I'm a pretty experienced computer user - I can find my way around most things given time, Why can't I find a proper tag list - I've googled... It should be on every edit page. There is something at Special:Tags and I only know this isn't it cos I notice there is (E.G.) no { { fact } } tag in the list
This is a good start, but needs a good pass of copyediting and clarification. Also, an essay needs to read as one, and not read as a guideline or quasi-policy. There are many good examples of well written essays, you may want to check these and get some ideas on how to improve this one. Until such time, I would avoid linking to it from policy or guidelines pages, which I have removed.
Some essays that I quite like: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Wikipedia:The_role_of_policies_in_collaborative_anarchy.
Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I do acknowledge tagging is fundamental in development of high-quality articles and certainly helps display the problems explicitly to uninvolved readers. However, I do believe that we need a more clearer policy on tagging and agree with the above user on this. It is really unhelpful if the tagger doesnt spend time explain the rationale and instead insist on tagging even if the author or authors of the article are willing to work with him or her. The distinction between un-oppsed drive-by tagging and cases where authors willing to work with the tagger needs to be made. Docku: “what up?” 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The practice of tagging in the article space should be proscribed on a basis of WP:V (see threshold for inclusion). Tagging constitutes meta-commentary about the current state of the article and therefore comprises talk content, not article content. Problems related to an article should be discussed on an article's talk page, not made to blight an article. Further, tagging should not be considered an acceptable substitute to editing the article or discussing article problems. Robert K S ( talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
User:UBX/Overtagging (UTC)
Also:
An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about. |
Ikip ( talk) 19:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I just ran across this essay and find the information important and deserving of community support. I sometimes place a tag on an article I run across in the course of other work. I do not troll to place tags and in fact have taken the position that unaddressed tags or long term tags should be removed. If there are issues and nothing is done then nothing can be fixed. I feel tags are necessary but should be accompanied by comments as to what led an editor to place the tag when the template is not clear. It certainly would be unreasonable to expect an editor to place a talk page comment on reasons for a tag that there are no references on an article. It is hard to even imagine stopping in the middle of work or research to address a problem that has come to light. Placing a tag not only calls attention to a problem it places the article on my watch list and I go over this from time to time. This means to me that tags do have an importance but there is also a need for an essay or guideline, especially important for newer users, to explain a community consensus on use. Otr500 ( talk) 14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
What would it take to get this essay (or some variation of it) turned into a guideline? (See WP:VPP proposal here.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Requesting a second opinion about whether Guthy-Renker warrants a tag (see discussion here). I brought the page up to GA while following COI best practices. In support of the tag, an editor says it's promotional to identify the article-subject by name in the article too frequently - I disagree. etc. Would appreciate someone taking a look. CorporateM ( Talk) 20:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I know I am not the only Wikipedian who finds it incomprehensible and maddening that there doesn't seem to be a complete list of Wikipedia tags. If there is, where is it, and why doesn't this help page link to it? If there isn't, why doesn't someone create one? (Don't tell me to do it, I don't know nearly enough about them.) I bet that if someone created such a list, it would immediately become one of the most frequently consulted Wikipedia help pages. Littlewindow ( talk) 23:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Related discussion on promoting the essay WP:TAGGING to Guideline status.
009o9 Disclosure (Talk) 15:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Given that I presume WP wants to be user-friendly, why is it so absurdly difficult to find basic instructions on how and where to insert a tag?! I've been editing on WP for a decade now, and I'm not exactly stupid, but every time I need to tag an article for WP:PROD or the like (which, to be fair, has only been 15-20 times), I have to go through a long process of searching for the specific instructions on how to do so. There seem to be dozens of pages about tags -- the variety of them, when they should be used, and so on -- but how about where to insert the tag(s), relative to the code on the page? At the top of every page, after one has clicked on "edit", there is the existing text and markup, which may include an infobox, redirect tags, "other uses", etc. Where is one supposed to insert the new tag? -above everything else? -below any existing tags but above any infobox? Really -- some simple instructions would be appreciated. And if that info already exists on some WP help page, damned if I can easily find it. Bricology ( talk) 18:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:TMC is the main repository for all the possible tags as far as I know, there isn't (and shouldn't be) another to confuse people more. Like all pages here, if there's something missing, anyone can add it to it.
While I commend you for being thorough, looking at your ten-step process just for tagging something, what you do can definitely be relaxed. There's a lot of inline tags but I really can't see the use of them in practice. Some of the tags are so specific and silly that I can't imagine why the tagger can fix such a problem in the same amount of time instead of searching for that specific tag. The more minor and specific a problem is, a tag for it for that situation seems more sillier. Take the instance of "Definition needed, Definition, Clarify, Ambiguous, How, Elucidate, Specify, or Vague", nearly all of them mean almost the same thing. Tagging is done with the sole purpose of alerting someone who can fix the problem when you can't; no one is going to check whether you tagged "correctly". Personally, I just know three inline tags, {{ cn}}, {{ who}} and {{ clarify}}--these apply to nearly all situations. You can always use just the talk page, the standard way of raising article issues; tagging is never something you ought to do--though you seem to do both. I personally don't think you should raise a citation needed issue (or any straightforward tag) on the talk, it's obvious what the problem is and it is assumed that you've failed the initial procedure of finding one and doubt its verifiability.
That's what I think, maybe that's why no one finds this such a big deal. What you've proposed isn't a bad idea, but really not urgent. Regarding better ways of doing some what you've mentioned above, there's Visual Editor. It has an easy way of inserting templates, even the basic search mode for it with it attempting to fetch the template description (depending if there's template data). For example, try adding "cn" using it. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 18:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Can you update the date? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 15:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
An RfC is underway that interested "watchers of this page" wound enhance by participating, I hope that many will! The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding "Ambox generated" maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 06:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
This essay contains lots of info about when to tag a page, but not how to do it.
I'm trying to do something fairly straightforward. I've found a very confusing Wikipedia page on Ata-Malik Juvayni. It contains no footnotes, but has five 'references' at the bottom numbered 1-5 as though there were footnotes in the text using those numbers.
In addition, these references seem to have nothing at all to do with the article. It is about a Persian historian, and they are about a Chinese general.
I know NOTHING about the topic myself, so can't even begin to fix it. I want to tag the page so that other editors are alerted to the problem. But the Wikipedia help pages direct me here, and this essay is not in any way helpful for the editor who simply wants to know HOW to do this as opposed to why and when it might be advisable to do so.
I would appreciate it if someone could help with this please. Liamcalling ( talk) 02:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that it's not intended as that, Redrose64, but that's the problem. When you go to the 'Help' pages to try to find "how-to" information you are directed here. And in fact I had followed many of the shortcuts on the page and stiil found myself being redirected back here because they are not clear either.
It's not just a problem with this page, really. In general, Wikipedia seems to be becoming less user-friendly; more and more designed for a (comparatively) small community of experienced editors who are familiar with the terminology and don't even notice the fact that some things might be near incomprehensible to the casual reader who wants to make a small improvement without spending a whole day on it. It wasn't always like this.
I might have another go later, or might just not bother. Thanks for your help. Liamcalling ( talk) 10:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear Liamcalling, and anyone else who might be stuck in the same rut as I was just now, I think I've figured it out. When editing an article, at least with the visual editor (the source editor is beyond me), there's an insert button on the toolbar. You can insert templates from there, including tag templates. I just added a copy edit template to an article from there. Hopefully this helps. Sincerely, VDizzleFoShizzle ( talk) 18:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yesterday I stumbled upon an article that was loaded with ideological sounding language, presented as objective fact. It was vague and weaselly, and almost none of it was sourced. This is the article in question: History of capitalism. I wrought the most havoc in the "Varieties of Capitalism" section. I enthusiastically tagged every vaguery, weasel wording and lack of sources I could find, and did some constructive edits to the text itself too, however on this article I read that I'm not supposed to do that, that you should never use more than 2 or 3 tags on a single article. My question is then, what else am I supposed to do when people write articles like that? Should I just delete the text I don't like? I can't use the "this section uses no citations" (or whatever) thing, because sometimes they do use 1 source in that section, and I frankly don't have the time to edit long texts about topics I'm not that invested in myself, plus I'm not a very good writer or a very motivated one, yet sometimes I do see content that's bad and I wanna do something about it. Should I just turn the disputed text into a comment in the source code so it's out of sight but not gone? Dapperedavid ( talk) 13:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I assume tag means cleanup tags and maintenance tags. Are CSD/PROD/XFD tags included? I think ideally we would explain exactly what tags we mean in the lead, and/or wikilink the word "tag" to something. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 04:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I came to this page hoping to find what tag to use to suggest a page/section needs to be cleaned up for better grammar/English. Perhaps this page itself could be improved to help people find the tags they need to use. Rebroad ( talk) 11:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)