Talk:Web template system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Web template system article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Original research - merge and trim?

This entire "series" of templating articles appears to have a lot of original research in it and represents an attempt to formalize a nomenclature for a set of technologies that are still in enormous evolution and flux themselves. The /Archive 1 even suggests putting original research in "supplementary pages" where are simply other wikipedia articles. That isn't what wikipedia is for. I would suggest merging some of the articles together and cutting out the stuff that isn't referencable. --NealMcB 18:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello NealMcB your suggestions are on the mark, but also not new. These "articles" have required a lot of work and energy even to get them in the state they are in now. The stuff in the "supplementary pages" was originally deleted by me and other editors, but that started a dispute, so what you see is some of the side-effects of an attempt at a good-faith compromise.

Moreover, I had requested that the "supplemental" O-R content be moved to the User namespace (which is not uncommon), not the main article namespace. (although it looks like some of the O-R content has been moved to the user namespace of its original contributor). So your digested summary of the archived talk is a tad simplistic.

There is a long history to these "articles." Much of it needs to be removed, much needs to be cited, and some of it has actually been both cited and checked by people informed on the subject matter. I don't disagree with your "merge and trim" suggestion one bit; but please don't assume you have stumbled upon an enclave of ignorance where people do not know what Wikipedia is for.

If you care, you can find more background here, and more background here. dr.ef.tymac 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Right on! I did spend time with the archived discussion that I referenced and I appreciate your work, as well as the enthusiasm of nearly all the contributors. I just thought that after the talk page was archived, it was important to put something in the new talk page, so I made a modest attempt, with a reference, for others that just stumbled across it. --NealMcB 15:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for doing that, it makes a lot of sense. dr.ef.tymac 15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2