Template talk:New
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I've repurposed this template to tag new articles. I spend a lot of time in the cleanup categories, and it is frustrating to find that so many of the articles in categories such as Category:Category needed are recently created articles that are going to be deleted. In order to avoid wasted editor effort, this tag can be used to mark new articles that would otherwise require multiple cleanup tags. -- Reinyday, 22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Recommend against using this template
I had some tags I had placed removed entirely, because first they were replaced with this template, and then someone removed it because it wasn't clear to them what the tag had been placed for. Information is lost when this template is used instead of something more specific. -- SCZenz 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to propose the opposite. According to my own research native editors feel their article has been poked when it slapped with the {{cleanup}}, furthermore in many cases they proceed in taking it off, and again furthermore have you seen the Cleanup backlog. This template's unique purpose over the past few years is to encourage the "native editor" or "creator" to deal with the specific aspects in which his article is lacking. Please discuss. frummer 21:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do think it's very important to be nice to new users. However, when an effort to be nicer actively detracts from the ability of Wikipedians to do maintanence on articles requiring it, I think that means we're approaching things in the wrong way. If there's a cleanup backlog, so be it—we should be honest when there's work to be done, even if it won't get done quickly. In the case of Western Heights High School, I had to gut the article because it was filled with unverifiable information about high school students, and then endured personal attacks from the disgruntled user until he got blocked; I hardly think the politeness of the templates I used to request further cleanup was the issue. -- SCZenz 00:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is no way to avoid idiots, not offline or online. I will confide in you that this template used to also say that the article could possibly be DB though it never proded it into any category for inspection. The point stands though, this template is def more encouraging than the cleanup. Cleanup tags are taken off by native editors, where as this one gets them reading up on what the article needs. frummer 14:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I do think it's very important to be nice to new users. However, when an effort to be nicer actively detracts from the ability of Wikipedians to do maintanence on articles requiring it, I think that means we're approaching things in the wrong way. If there's a cleanup backlog, so be it—we should be honest when there's work to be done, even if it won't get done quickly. In the case of Western Heights High School, I had to gut the article because it was filled with unverifiable information about high school students, and then endured personal attacks from the disgruntled user until he got blocked; I hardly think the politeness of the templates I used to request further cleanup was the issue. -- SCZenz 00:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Template is still broken
Doesn't add the "uncat" categories. Only used by one article. Dubious value, and maintenance overhaed... Rich Farmbrough, 14:13 1 January 2007 (GMT).
- the category you are referring to is Category:Category needed which as you can see above and on my talk page was taken out due to the tremendous backlog in that sector. Since I'm one of the only ones to be using this template, I will be manually adding Category:Category needed where appropriate. frummer 21:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. Should the template then still say May require Categorisation' Rich Farmbrough, 23:36 1 January 2007 (GMT).
- I think so, just in case or does need to be categorised. frummer 14:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. Should the template then still say May require Categorisation' Rich Farmbrough, 23:36 1 January 2007 (GMT).
