Template talk:Maintained

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

{{Maintained|{{user4|Example}}, {{user4|Example}}, {{user4|Example}}}}

Maintained The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Example (talk • contribs • email), Example (talk • contribs • email), Example (talk • contribs • email)
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussion(s) before even considering re-nomination:

This new template for article talk pages will list people who have identified themselves as active monitors for the article, and who are willing to act as points of contact regarding facts and sources in the article. Please use this on any articles you are willing to watch for the extended future. Also, feel free to remove people from an article's template if they become inactive, since it is supposed to act as a "list of active contacts", not a "list of significant contributors".

Best usage:
Create a template at User:Example/maintenance and add to it: {{subst:user4|Example}}. Then, use the following format in the {{Maintained}} template:

{{Maintained|{{User:Example/maintenance}}}}
  • Your maintenance list is at Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Example/maintenance.
  • If you want to remove your name from all the templates, just blank your /maintenance page.
  • You can also put in a message such as "on break until March" on the /maintenance page, so people know not to contact you.
  • Don't use HTML tags on your /maintenance note because MediaWiki doesn't like it.

Alternate usage:

  • Since every user with an account/username has a talk page at Wikipedia, the {{user4}} template recommended above (which displays an email option) is of no use to any users or viewers of the template looking at usernames who do not publish email addresses in their user preferences. The user0 template works fine and may suit your needs for this template better.
  • Simply enter {{user0|Your_username}} where Your_username is replaced with the username you use to log in to Wikipedia to add your username to the Maintenance template, without editing your user maintenance page and going through all of the steps above.
  • Example:{{Maintained | {{User0|Your_username}} }}.
  • Additional information can be added per username (what was last verified and when for example) by specifying the format in an HTML comment below the template when it is put on a talk page.

Example:

{{Maintained |
{{User0|Your_username}} · History section · [[YYYY-MM-DD]]<br />
{{User0|Another_username}} · Introduction · [[YYYY-MM-DD]]<br />
...etc.
}}

The User0 template displays only your username (with a wiki-link to your userpage) and (talk) (with a wiki-link to your user talk page) after it. Please see Template:User for more information on user templates and what they display. Not all of them work. If you see {{{1}}} as the list of usernames after the template text then you cannot use that user template (user3 doesn't work in this template, for example). It should be decided first on the talk page of the article which user template and what other (if any) information is going to be used so that it all remains consistent instead displaying different user template formats and other information (if any) that follows. Maintain a standard format and document it in an HTML comment right under and/or over the template tag.

Note: Please keep in mind that you lose the benefits of only having to change one page (your user/maintenance page and {{subst:user0|Your_username}} (where Your_username is what you use to log in to Wikipedia with and user0 instead of the user4 template format) is also fine to put on your user/maintenance page, as documented above but using a different/smaller User:Template. This way if you are unable to help with Wikipedia:Attribution on many articles for any length of time, you only need blank one page or change the contents as described above as opposed to changing perhaps two or more talk pages as you would have to using the format above.

Using <br /> after each username/'row' of information creates a line break (moves the following text to the next line) per username, even if one wraps to five screen text lines documenting numerous sections and dates last verified, the template centers it all. You can also add a comment under the usernames (and other information as appropriate for a given article/talk page) by using <br /><br /> to create a blank line and entering comments/instructions below the username line(s), such as If you would like to add your name to this list, please click on the "edit this page" tab and read the instructions under the first table.

Example:

{{Maintained |
{{User0|Your_username}} · History section · [[YYYY-MM-DD]]<br />
{{User0|Another_username}} · Introduction · [[YYYY-MM-DD]]<br />
...etc.<br />
<br />To add your information to this list, please click on "edit this page" and follow the instructions.
}}

The two line breaks (<br /> in a row create a blank line between the last username/line(s) of information and any comments/instructions you wish to put in the template itself, under the usernames.

Guidelines:

  • Do place this template on articles for which you have good knowledge and understanding of the relevant sources.
  • Do place this template on articles which you have thoroughly read, understood, and checked against sources.
  • Do not place this template on controversial articles that are easily subject to POV wars.
  • Do not use this template as a means to attempt to display "ownership" of an article, or as a way to force others to clear their changes with you beforehand.

Contents


Archive 1

[edit] Template symbol

Someone changed the template symbol, as it might be confused as signifying an admin was maintaining the page. A precedent was set in template:done, indicating that the fact that someone might confuse the two, with no proof that it has ever happened is not a good reason to change a symbol. Quadzilla99 02:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My exact reason for the change was "you don't need to be an admin to be active in maintaining and improving an article" I stand by this assertion. The admin mop is well recognized as a symbol representing that a user is an admin. This is not so much an issue that the editors might be confused as admins, rather this image simply isn't applicable to the theme of the template. This template has nothing to do with admins to any extent. For this reason I feel the pen is a better image as it goes along with the theme of editing and improving an article. I think the pen image can potentioally be replaced with a more fitting image, but certainly not the admin mop. That being said, Quadzilla99, would you consider changing it back or would you prefer if we requested a third opinion? --24fan24 (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Well since you and I disagree there would need to be a consensus reached before a change could be made. As per the template:done situation I referred to there would probably need to be some specific examples of people actually confusing the two rather than guesses that it might happen. See here, if you want to reach consensus do the same as was done there and add it to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page and you'll most likely get a long discussion and consensus reaching decision. Your claim that there is some confusion is supported by nothing more than a guess as far as I can see though, and given the precedent set there is likely to be shot down. If you want to though, by all means give it a shot. Quadzilla99 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't give proof that this is confusing anyone but where this is used on a userpage [1], I can see users at sight mistaking this user for an admin. I'll go ahead and list this at the village pump. --24fan24 (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Listed on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) --24fan24 (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied from the village pump:
Template:Maintained, currently contains an image of the admin mop. I am proposing that this image is changed to Image:Crystal xedit.png. I feel that the admin mop is unfitting for this template because one does not have to be an admin to be active in maintaining and improving an article. However, Quadzilla99 has stated that "A precedent was set in template:done, indicating that the fact that someone might confuse the two, with no proof that it has ever happened is not a good reason to change a symbol." I am seeking some opinions on the change of the image. --24fan24 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As of yet there is zero evidence that that the two are being confused. See here and here for similar discussions. Basically I find it extremely unlikely that the two are being confused, which no one has shown through evidence to be the case in either situation. The fact that they should be changed because they might be confused is dubious in both cases in my opinion. No one is confusing the two at all as far as I can see. Quadzilla99 03:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it would be better if the template did not have the administrator symbol on it unless it refers directly to administrators in some way. It certainly could cause confusion, if used on a user page. Perhaps there is a better symbol that can be used? Kukini hablame aqui 03:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
--24fan24 (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it could be confusing, and it also only conveys the 'cleaning up' side of the template. Perhaps an image of an article with a magnifying glass over it would be more broad, which can suggest both maintenance and improvement in general. Or perhaps an editor standing guard in front of an article to indicate their ownership of it? (joke) Richard001 00:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the template should have another symbol. --evrik (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How about this image: --24fan24 (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Or this: --24fan24 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Also my original proposal, which I think is best: --24fan24 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

generaly it is best not to use things with the wikipedia logo in them since it is non free.Geni 21:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the pen at all, it's so ambiguous as to be meaningless. The magnifying glass makes it seem like the user is going to inspect the changes in detail. I would prefer the current version to the alternatives listed here. Although I would be open to new suggestions. Maybe some kind of generic gender neutral figure or silhoullette. Tayquan 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Because what we're really talking about here is a person not a pen or book. Tayquan 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I thought the pen fit in with the improving of the article. As one might edit something with a pen. I acknowledge that this is not the best image, so feel free to put another one in its place. --24fan24 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Tayquan, your image definitely looks better. --24fan24 (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Hesperian 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, took me a while to find my way to where they keep these icons at. Tayquan 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for template alteration

I made some suggestions on the vfd page for how I feel the template should be improved, but this is really the best place to restate them.

[edit] Improvements

I feel the template should be restructured to give the user more options over what it says about themselves. There should be a default message (the one that appears now), then some fields that the user can modify to suit their specific intentions. For example, the fields Expert (Yes/No), Help with references (Yes/No) (e.g. a non-expert librian), Maintaining (Yes/No) (to say whether you are watching all edits and reverting all vandalism), and Expansion (Yes/No) - to say whether or not you expanding are or intend to expand the article in near future. As an example the 'this user is interested in this topic' proposal would be used for those not involved heavily in maintaining or expanding, but able to help with references even though they may not have a PhD in the subject. I feel this should all be kept in the one template so that a) 16 separate templates to fill all possibilities aren't needed and b) to keep it all in one message (who wants to see three separate templates each saying similar things about different contributors?) In this way if we have an expert who can help with references, someone who can expand the article and someone who is prepared to weed out all the vandalism, the three can work together and users and editors alike can see what is happening with the article in terms of maintenance and expansion, and they have someone to go to for questions or further references/verification.

Anyone who knows what a history tab/list is can already do that by clicking on it, then clicking on the username/user page and talk, contributions, etc. tabs from there. This template has nothing to do with alleged 'experts' because it's alleged, it's original research and POV and against the rules if they don't follow all this template addresses: Wikipedia:Attribution. —S-Ranger 03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns

If there is a genuine concern, why not specifically say in small text below, something like 'Note: This does not imply ownership or authority over this article in any way. Refer to the template guidelines.

Exactly. And if there is some perceived (or even real, though I'd like to see the proof) ownership or any other issue around what no one seems to understand—verification—then explain anything and everything above, below or in the template or (nothing personal; in general) create your own template(s) for odd talk pages or don't use any templates. It's not a mandatory tag for all talk pages and there is no one size fits all solution for every talk page/topic on Wikipedia, regarding anything but guidelines that certainly differ from talk page to talk page in reality. —S-Ranger 02:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The other main problem is when the user is inactive. If they are they should be removed after around a month of inactivity provided they have stated that they are active in maintaining or expanding the article. If they have made no edits to Wikipedia at all for a period of time (1 month, 3 months?) they should be removed entirely unless they wish to remain there simply for help with references or editing concerns. This can either be done manually or automatically (if possible), though a note should be left on their talk page either way. Richard001 00:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. How are you or anyone else going to determine whether I am 'inactive' in verifying that (which?) alleged facts thrown around in articles by editors, actually match up with the Wikipedia:Attribution-quality sources I force on everything whether 'editors' happen to like it or not? Population estimates are released once a month in some countries, once a quarter in others, once a year, once per census, along with economic<->socio-economic info-stats, politics and related topics, which is about all I verify and am qualified to verify (due to expert sources ... combined with a little rule regardign no original research making 'editors' irrelevant if they're causing/expanding the #1 problem Wikipedia has by not citing any sources when throwing alleged facts around, or citing biased or worthless sources because they haven't bothered to read Wikipedia:Attribution, the one and only thing this template deals with) but you (one, whomever) think you could know whether I'm doing my job or not?
How could one possibly know that, without doing actual verification for oneself and finding that some religious group, population or other ecnomic<->socio-economic<->political data has been updated by the expert sources (given that anyone can and does proclaim to be "experts" on anything and everything that they want their way around online and offline, which is nothing but unverified hearsay/POV and original research combined—unless expert sources are being used to verify all significant facts thrown around in whatever article) source so is out-of-date and needs to be updated possibly at the article source/verification ref tag itself and in the article (or not, in which case no editing takes place), or that someone screwed up the number/total used to calculate their percentages, without doing the verification (not editing) yourself? And start with the Detroit page or the like (whomever, never anything personal between me and my video display, which is all I'm looking at) to find out what this template is really of desperate use for and with no confusion at all as to what its actual purpose is, because there are hundreds of allegations made in big city/city-region articles, the ones I focus on, not the Dolly Parton or Star Trek or any other articles around here (which means entertainment; things that people argue about until the end of time, perceptions, perspectives, hearsay; not the U.S. Census Bureau or U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis and equivalents in other countries).
If you do that over and over, you still have no right to claim that I am 'inactive' without knowing exactly what sentence(s), table(s), sections at best I (or anyone else listed) am verifying in articles. This template has nothing at all to do with editing. The only time edits are made around verification is when errors are found and that seems to be the main 'argument' around this template: editors who don't understand/know what verification even is.
Others, dozens and dozens of them, hundreds, would 'notice' (in a year maybe) if I were inconsiderate enough to leave my username in this template knowing that ... the 2010 (U.S.), 2011 (Canada), etc., census data aren't going to be released until 2011 or 2012 at best? And what if that is 'all' one is verifying but for an entire country and it takes them 5 years just to get every article updated and verified? You'd (whomever, your example above might) just remove the user from the list, based on what?
Editing is not verifying. Editing takes next to no skill and is the #1 problem Wikipedia has by the WikiMedia Foundation's own admissions. It's not stated directly but who/what but editors make Wikipedia an unreliable source of information? Bots? Those who verify are working on the #1 problem Wikipedia has. Those who edit without proper Wikipedia:Attribution-quality sources to back up alleged facts thrown around in artcles are the #1 cause of Wikipedia's #1 problem.
If editors feel that they need some template regarding style, etc. (which is not what the Maintained template even mentions: just Wikipedia:Attribution and it's no "just" it's the #1 problem Wikipedia has) and how many edits they've made to what, they can stick it on their user pages where it belongs. And they, if there is a they, can only be considered "experts" around one topic (whatever the article addresses given that the concept of multiple and very diverse topics, plural, in one article like the Toronto article (I've been verifying it for months and am nowhere near finished) is not even addressed by this template but it's certainly my reality/experience around here, with the types or articles I frequent) if the article gets FA status and if it does then all of their hard editing work is rewarded with FA status and that tag on the talk page. —S-Ranger 02:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't read all of that as it seemed to quickly go off topic from inactivity to attribution (and link to it four times). Basically I'm saying users who are inactive in contributing (much of what this template is about) they should be said to be contributing. Richard001 04:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Just as you probably can't be bothered reading any documentation around here because if anything goes on an on and off on tangents every other word into other wikipedias, the documentation around here is it. Show me where in the template, anywhere at all, that "contributions" are mentioned. Wikipedia:Attribution, which I will hammer into the heads of those who refuse to grasp the concept over and over and over and over until they f-off, shut off, both or comprehend the err of their stupidity, is all the template addresses. —S-Ranger 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting mighty sick of your low-key insults and ad hominem attacks on people. Pull your head in. Hesperian 05:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current wording

The current wording is entirely useless. It helps no one. It looks like the user is a fan of the subject, hell I'm new here if I saw that and didn't know the story I would think to add it to pages about my favorite teams or rappers. The template is supposed to indicate that the user has a grasp of the article. Useless. Tayquan 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The "is maintained by" version was worse than useless. Suggest a compromise. Hesperian 23:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the new wording better than the old. --24fan24 (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How about "The following users have contributed to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources"? ShadowHalo 01:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No objection. Hesperian 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That seems workable; basically, there just needs to be something in the wording which indicates some manner of active participation with work on the article, rather than merely an interest in the topic. Kirill Lokshin 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • ... but without in any way suggesting any privileged editorial role. Hesperian 01:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is going the wrong way. There are certain abstruse articles that are genuinely maintained by someone, usually a genuine expert. They should use this template, and this template should be returned to that purpose. If there is to be an "I'm interested and can help with references" template, it should be a different template. - Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

We're just trying to save it from TFD. Keep this new range of wording, keep talking it out guys. --Reaper X 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
How about "The following users are actively contributing to this article, and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources"? That gets rid of the "maintaining" wording while still showing that the listed users are actually involved. Kirill Lokshin 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

How about forgetting about 'contributions' altogether given that all the template states is that one or more users may be able to help with Wikipedia:Attribution? Perhaps those who are so confused and against the template might actually read Wikipedia:Attribution; the only wiki-policy this template addresses, and get clued in that only contributions regarding verification/Wikipedia:Attribution apply to this template.

It goes without saying given that it's the only wiki-link in the template, but since it isn't going without saying due to editors who seem to have no clue what Wikipedia:Attribution even means: perhaps those opposed should read the only link in this template to find out what it actually addresses. And then tell everyone why you're so against Wikipedia:Attribution on that talk page (you meaning my video display as always, nothing personal). —S-Ranger 03:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a strange way of looking at it. The (original) template stated two distinct things about every listed user:
  1. That they are "active in maintaining and improving this article", and
  2. That they may be able to help with "questions regarding verification and sources".
You're trying to reduce it to only covering the second point, which significantly changes both its intended role and its level of usefulness. There are a great many people who may be interested in a topic and who can help with sourcing issues; but the template was originally intended as a way of showing those that were actually present at the article in question, rather than merely being "available" only in a theoretical sense. Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Who cares about the original template? I changed it myself to end the pointless wastes of time trying to keep up with whatever deluded smoke and mirrors the freaks thought they saw, to pull the rug out from under their deluded imaginary debate about what might as well have been cloud formations "appearing" to give whatever nutcases the appearance of wiki-article this and that when the template was much more clear than it is now: and will be again.
  • Even with the original template, name one thing that is more important than directly dealing with the #1 problem Wikipedia has, not being a credible source of information and not due to bots but due to editors who don't know or care about what Wikipedia:Attribution, all this template addresses, is. Or editors wouldn't be the #1 problem Wikipedia has, would it? Nothing is more important around here than babysitting 'editors' who throw specific but alleged facts around articles with nothing (or total bias) to back anything up with, which is called what? Editing? No. 'editors' are very clearly the #1 problem Wikipedia has (or they wouldn't be the #1 problem Wikipedia has) and the Maintained template attempts, in a very meek and worthless way now, to deal with that by dealing with the #1 problem 'editors' leave behind for myself and others to clean up using what as guidelines? Our 'expertise?' Where is or was that ever stated in the template again? As with all if it, it never was it was all imagined by people who very obviously are not dealing with what myself and many others are attempting to deal with, so have no f-ing clue in the world (or care) about the #1 problem Wikipedia has due to their own vanity or stupidity or both as 'editors'. And you're strange. You want to play word games with me, kid? Go to it -- elsewhere.
How many 'edits' someone has happened to make states absolutely nothing that has anything to do with this template, after what, wasting an hour going through history lists for no apparent reason? No. Wikipedia:Attribution, the only wiki-issues this template deals with and may be able to help (emphasis only not yelling) has always stated exactly that: not that anyone is an expert (irrelevant around here and according to many polls, irrelevant period. Prove that "contributions" means Wikipedia:Attribution with proper verification to my standards (which you can read all about in Wikipedia:Attribution, you meaning whomever if anyone is reading as always) or f-off as some worthless 'editor' who may think it is 'contributing' but is actually doing nothing but causing myself and others and Wikipedia a lot of work to deal the #1 problem around here, over and over again&mdas;due to people who can't be bothered reading) so what else amounts to making the most important contributions to wiki-articles period? If it's not Wikipedia:Attribution then it's not dealing with the #1 problem (and a potentially fatal problem if it's not corrected) Wikipedia has and go tell Jimbo all about your theories claiming that those who check the BS alleged 'facts' editors throw around in articles, 'contributions' are much more important than any Wikipedia:Attribution issues. As in the only conflict in the statement that you allege there are two of above are one statement and (before the wording was changed), the proper wording given what the template deals with, which is what those opposed to it simply cannot, refuse to or do not comprehend.
  • And you were saying something about 'tangents'? You all are the ones off on outrageous tangents with your smoke and mirrors; things the template has never done, is not capable of doing either, which was quite plain and to the point as it WAS. But due to you old biddies (certainly acting like it) the template basically states nothing now. And that is going to change too. The wording is going to be made much stronger than it ever was to not only reflect the abslutely crucial role that those who verify alleged 'facts' editors throw around are correct and properly verified; but with proper wording right from Wikipedia that y'all will never have a hope of getting imaginary ants in your pants over (you means my video display as usual given that it's all I'm looking at), let alone trying to change any of it, let alone some lame attempt to delete it; which is over by the way and y'all lost. —S-Ranger 05:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[Not that it was ever some 'game'/contest to me; just to the propganda artists with their imaginary smoke and mirrors.] —S-Ranger 05:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I've had enough of both your bizarre attacks on everyone around you and your attempts to reduce the meaning of all article-writing to blind parroting of WP:ATT. I get the sense that you haven't actually written anything; if you had, you'd understand that simplistic verifiability is merely the beginning of the process, and, by itself, won't actually produce a useful article. Kirill Lokshin 09:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
S-Ranger seems to be claiming that everyone who opposes this template is "confused" because they all "have no clue what attribution even means". This kind of ad hominem argument doesn't help one bit, irrespective of whether or not he tacks "nothing personal" on the end. Hesperian 04:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Around you people: everything seems to be. You have never had a shred of evidence, have never had the grounds for a debate due to that so what else is new? And nothing is ad hominem. If what I stated with no verification applies to you then you should read Wikipedia:Attribution to get a clue what this template is about. If not then it doesn't apply to you, so which is it? —S-Ranger 05:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't the faintest idea of why you actually consider yourself to be in a position to assert "what this template is about", seeing as I don't recall you participating in any of the various discussions in which the actual purpose had been debated. Kirill Lokshin 09:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
How about considering giving the user the option to choose what they want the template to say about them, as I discussed above. The point I'm trying to make is there is no wording that will satisfy all, but as the different roles in maintaining have a common connection it makes sense to keep them in one template and let the editor decide what message they want to convey, which will require a range of different descriptions to convey that role. Richard001 04:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
It might be theoretically doable, but there are some practical issues here: the template currently assumes that everyone listed will fall under the same category (whatever that may be). If we have a template that switches the text, we either need to set it up such that individual users can change the text personally, or, alternately, have multiple (differently-worded) versions of the template on the same talk page. Kirill Lokshin 09:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
How about the "Following users are actively contributing to this topic and encourage you to contribute to this article also. They would be happy to answer any questions about it's content or sources" That (or something like it; it could defninitely be worded better) kills two birds with one stone. Tayquan 11:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I like it! Kirill Lokshin 11:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it will cover all situations, and the contributing statement is a little vague. It implies a fair degree of knowledge without suggesting they are experts. On the other hand, multiple possible messages does present a problem in terms of display, mainly when there is more than one active contributor. If there is only one, which is often the case, letting the editor choose a their own message is better, but for more than one editor it may get messy and complicated with multiple intentions. Even so, the difficulties can probably be worked out as they come up, and won't present any problem for single 'maintainers'.

How about some possible messages that could be used? Authors may be contributing in terms of expanding, improving the quality, or maintaining quality. Expanding and improving quality could be covered by 'improving', while 'maintaining' conveys no sense of improving the article. Contributing covers all these aspects, but it loses the specificity such that it becomes unclear exactly what their role is. Fields such as

   |maintain=yes|improve=no|help=yes

could be used to say (in this case) The following users are active in maintaining the quality of this article. If you have any questions regarding sources or editing concerns, they may be able to help.

Adding 'no' to the last field will drop off the last sentence, while the message could alternatively read 'active in improving this article' or 'active in improving and maintaining the quality of' depending on their choice. Alternatively, if they simply choose 'help=yes' it could say The following user is has knowledge in this area and may be able to help with sources or editing concerns. This option would be appropriate for someone with expertise or experience in a field who may not have time to watch for vandalism etc.

The default would be yes in all three fields, while putting no in every field would cause the template not to display. It may be possible to automatically remove the template if the user has not edited the article or talk page in over a month or so, however if not other users may do so. In cases of multiple users they can probably agree on a single message. There could also be an option of a completely custom message if it is desired, which may be suitable for multiple editors.

In all cases a message such as 'You are encouraged to contribute' or 'this does not imply any ownership or authority over this article' would be good to clarify things, but inserting into the template in a natural looking way may be difficult. Perhaps some small text at the bottom saying something like Please understand this does not imply ownership of the article. All editors are encouraged to contribute. may be the best solution. Richard001 23:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/i/Template_talk%7EMaintained_50f6.html"