Template talk:Flag-article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Flag-article page.

Contents
  • Note: These legacy discussions reflect the state of the template as of the date they were made ... since it documents the evolution based on usage, the current version of the template may differ from its appearance on this discussion page, e.g., icons and tone ... Happy Editing! — 72.75.78.69 (talk · contribs) 23:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from Talk:Lynn Huggins-Cooper

what softens the blow--what in fact transfoms the blow into a promise-- is not a template--even a remarkably skilled template-- with fancy little spikes and ribbons and apologies and caveats, with a long text explanation of every possible way to avoid or repair damage. all it does is give the impression we are a big self-important overcomplicated sophisticated web 3.0 machine instead of a primitive piece of first-generation automaton run by first generation usenet types. What works is a short polite personal note explaining briefly how to write a better article or contribute meaningfully, with a link or two for further reading--i like WP:FIRST and WP:CTW--and a offer for personal assistance. If it doesnt take of the actual contribution--even the actual vandalism--it isnt responsive.

We get 2 to 3,000 articles a day, about 2/3 of which must be rejected. We have 1000 active admins to do it. I can write 2 or 3 real notes a day, and so can anyone else. Any experience non admin also. We have enough good people here to teach every new contributor carefully and personally. DGG (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been using the template for six months now, and this is the first comment that I have received about it ... that is why I copied this *comment from the talk page of an article where it was used to this page, where the discussion properly belongs ... experience has altered my perception and opinions, and I shall return shortly to pare it down to the bare essentials ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 05:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getting there. Suggestions

1. Require a statement of which type of article it is.

  • Do you mean like {{db}} when it doesn't have an argument? I never really thought about that ... I don't think that anyone would use it without specifying one of the Guidelines.
  • Addressed - added "so one should always be specified" —23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - OK, I understand now ... I always open the appropriate warning protocol in another tab (e.g., Warn-band), then do a copy&paste of the 1st Step:

      {{subst:Warn-article|Name-of-author|Music|header=1}} —~~~~

      so all I have to do is fill in the username of the author ... it never occurred to me not to specify a Guideline. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 01:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

2. "Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of Notability … without them, an article is just original research, which is prohibited by official policy. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only links to unreliable ones like MySpace, Google, and Amazon.com) raises a flag for some editors that such attributable sources may not, in fact, exist."
a.Google isnt a source, but the material found on google is. Amazon & Facebook are in another category.

b.Dont get OR into it--without out sources, it may not be OR, just unverified from whatever source there is.

  • Agreed ... I know better now.

c. "raises a flag for some editors" change to "suggests to some editors"

  • Good call! :-)

d. "The point is that I plan to tag this article with either a Prod that explains my reasons why I believe that it should be deleted, or else a Db-reason tag for speedy deletion (CSD A7)." say which. It makes a difference.

  • That's a bit of a problem ... since the idea is to provide a "cooling off" period, and at the time of flagging, one has not yet decided which would be more appropriate.
  • Please note that when one of the Guidelines is specified, the appropriate tag (e.g., {{Db-bio}} or {{Db-web}}) is inserted.
    • Comment - From the Deletion warnings:

      Sometimes citations from Reliable sources will appear in an article within hours of the warnings being posted, and the Notability concerns are addressed without the need for a proposed deletion or WP:AfD.

      That's the sentiment ... "I'm not sure yet, but this smells fishy, so I've got my eye on it ... maybe I'll tag it, maybe I'll MOVE ON." —23:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Or it might be a WP:COPYVIO, so I'll come back with a CSD G12. —01:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

e. put in a field for personal comment.

  • Since the tag does not include a signature, any comments can be added after the template, which I have done on occasion ... unfortunately, all of the examples have been deleted. :-)

f. offer to help personally.

  • Darn ... I thought I had something about that ... might have been in the part I deleted. <Sigh!>
    • On second thought, the offer of help should probably be in the {{Warn-editor}} template rather than this one ... I realized that when I looked at {{Helpme}}, which is for the User talk page, not the Article talk page.

Personally, I find I can write it out fresh each time sooner than adapt a template. But for those who dont feel as confident about this, a template like this can be helpful. It will at least ensure the comment is based on correct policy.

I apologize for not getting to this earlier. There are many good projects--this is one of the better ones. DGG (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Thnx fer the positive feedback ... maybe after a little more work, it will be a Worthy Contribution ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 08:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to {{Warn-editor}}

I have taken a stab at offering assistance in Template:Warn-editor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) as discussed above ... I tried not to be Too Fuzzy. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I also tweaked this template, after cogitating upon the discussion above. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separate warnings

I don't think it should discuss both prod and speedy. We should have separate warnings for each process. Corvus cornixtalk 03:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to back up a bit ... this is a pre-emptive warning of your intention to re-assess the article Real Soon Now, and then make a decision to try to either (a) improve it, or (b) get rid of it.
There will be three possible ways to delete it at that point (PROD, CSD, or AfD), but you don't know which one you'll decide to use when you flag it with this template ... if it's an obvious kill it before it grows article, then you go straight to a speedy deletion and then MOVE ON ... you don't need a protocol for that. :-)
It's also a First Impression template ... assume that this is some newbie's first article, and they haven't read WP:FIRST ... this is stuff they never heard of before, and need to know ... that's why it's a YELLOW warning icon instead of a RED one ("Get their attention, but don't frighten them!") ... they don't know what's going on and we're trying to bring them up to speed, so we need to hold their hands, not slap them ... how often do you see nuggets removing a {{Db}} tag, putting {{Hangon}} on an AfD, or reverting an AfD tag, simply because they don't know any better?
Anywho, that's where I'm coming from with this template ... this just sez, "Hey, Grasshopper, one of two things might happen if you don't improve this article (a five-day probation, or delete on sight), and here's what's wrong with it." ... then it points them to the already established policies and procedures.
Finally, there's WP:BITE ... the template (as worded) lets them know that a PROD or AfD is not necessarily a Bad Thing because it buys them time so that it cannot be speedy deleted.
Are we on the same page? —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No, you've got me confused. When would you use this? Corvus cornixtalk 17:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the new section Why the templates are so verbose in the Deletion warnings essay ... that's the root of it all, anyway ... lemme know if it's still unclear when to use them. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Man, what a lot of bureaucracy and confusing steps to have to go through!!! Corvus cornixtalk 19:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it becomes a no brainer after a while ... you see a questionable page that doesn't appear to satisfy WP:CORP ... you pop open Warn-inc in another browser tab, copy&paste the template stencils from the 1st and 2nd Steps onto the Discussion and User Talk pages, and then MOVE ON.
A few days later, you check to see if there has been any improvement, and maybe try some "putting lipstick on a pig" cosmetic improvements, if you don't feel like researching it ... it's either in better shape, or else then you can tag it for deletion, either gently or aggressively.
The four steps on User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome and the {{Warn-templates}} table are all you really need ... you can read through the Deletion warnings essay once, and then just use the table and a second browser tab ... is the Deletion policy bureaucratic? Or is it just that the Deletion warnings essay has too much WikiLawyering to suit your taste? ... still, this in no way renders WP:IAR inoperative ... remember, There is no 5thStep, so you can forget everything that comes after it. ;-)
I just happen to think that having it written down and spelled out as a logic path is a better alternative to "making it up as I go along", which is what I was doing before I started this project ... if there had been something like this to read a year ago, I wouldn't have gotten blocked from editing for overly aggressive (and sometimes premature) speedy deletion tagging ... even changing the language from "intend to" to "am considering" is a reflection of how the process of developing the protocols has raised my consciousness about the problem, and the resultant changes may influence Some Other Editor. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] significant problems

I disagree with the approach of trying to explain -- or even list-- all our policies and all the possibilities in a template. I think it is confusing to the new contributors. I suppose we do need something for those who do not want to write personalized messages, but it should be compact, and refer to a more detailed page. The contents of th present template would do nicely for the more detailed page.

That sounds like a workable compromise ... shorter templates, and they can read the other stuff in the essays, policies, and guidelines. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've trimmed the template as you suggested, and also took a stab at {{Warn-editor}} ... I'd appreciate feedback on it as well ... I also replaced WP:VSCA with WP:COPYVIO. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wordiness

Just dealing with wordiness, I propose the following changes to the template: Hello, fellow editors ... I recently encountered this article while performing either New Page Patrol, Recent changes patrol, or Counter-Vandalism Unit activities, and in my opinion as a Wikipedia editor, it, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Academics, Biographies, Organizations and companies, Fiction, Music, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it reads like blatant Vanispmcruftisment.
Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones like IMDb and MySpace pages, PageRank results, or the subject's own website) suggests to some editors that such attributable sources may not, in fact, exist
The point is that I am considering tagging this article with either a {{Prod} that explains my reasons why I believe that it should be deleted, or else a {{Db-reason} tag for speedy deletion (CSD A7) because I feel that it is not redeemable, and that an Administrator should delete it on sight.
I have created this initial entry on the article's Discussion page in the hope that administrators and other editors, including the author, Editor-name (talk · contribs), will also comment on their opinions and actions here ... please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

First of all, it's not so wordy when you select one of the guidelines ... see the example further down on this talk page ... second, I agree with the trimmings. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] multiple possibilities

I also propose replacing "either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Academics, Biographies, Organizations and companies, Fiction, Music, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it reads like blatant Vanispmcruftisment." with a way of stating just what the problem is. I do not see how it help editors to be told that the article is unsuitable on one of 6 or 7 different grounds, but not telling them which it is. Are they supposed to guess, or are we trying to help them.

Incidentally, "or perhaps it reads like blatant Vanispmcruftisment." is particularly unsuitable wording: From that page

"Vanispmcruftisment (IPA: /væ.nə.spæm.kɹəf.ʼtaɪz.mənt/; sometimes abbreviated as vanispamcruft or VSCA) is a portmanteau comprising several editorial faults which some Wikipedians see as cardinal sins: vanity (i.e., conflict of interest), spam, cruft, and advertisement."

-- again, no telling which of them it is--and "vanity" has been depreciated as it is considered insulting. (& its just an essay, not a guideline, of no authority whatsoever)

Similarly, saying "Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones like IMDb and MySpace pages, PageRank results, or the subject's own website) suggests to some editors that such attributablereliable sources may not, in fact, exist" is another guessing game.

  • Not really ... it's "consciousness raising", giving examples so that they'll know not to use them in the future. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I've marked my changes with underlined strikeouts. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, " I am considering tagging this article with either a {{Prod} that explains my reasons why I believe that it should be deleted, or else a {{Db-reason} tag for speedy deletion (CSD A7) because I feel that it is not redeemable, and that an Administrator should delete it on sight." Presumably you intend to do one or the other -- or perhaps propose a merge, or an afd, or any of several other possibilities. Tell them which. DGG (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Again, you don't know which way you'll go yet ... this is all about, "This article looks bogus on first glance, so I'll warn the author and give them a few days to fix it." ... you can't tell them which because you don't know yet yourself (fix or delete) ... you may not ever tag it for deletion! —72.75.72.63 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Then say so so without trying to give the details about how speedy and prod go, and just say something like "for possible deletion". consciousness raising and general instruction is all well and good, but it doesn't really go in the warning about an article. When you tell someone that their article is threatened with removal, they want to know how to fix it. The sufficient reference for general instruction--and you use it -- is WP:FIRST. This isnt the time to explain everything.DGG (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! You are absolutely correct ... New Rule: "Say it in an essay, not in the template" ... I've edited the example below to show what I think can be removed ... notice that I changed the icon, too, trying to make it less threatening. :-) —72.75.72.63 (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example of using template with (Music)

This is an example of using the stencil template from Warn-band ... note that using the "Music" guideline, it generates shortcuts for WP:MUSIC and {{Db-music}} when instantiated. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning Notice: This article lacks WP:A to establish WP:MUSIC

In my opinion, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for Music, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it violates a copyright.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

I am considering tagging this article with either a {{Prod}} that explains my reasons why I believe that it should be deleted, or else a {{Db-music}} tag for speedy deletion (CSD A7) because I feel that it is not redeemable, and that an Administrator should delete it on sight according to the Deletion policy if it is not improved ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

[edit] Change of focus

Well, sometimes it takes a while for things to sink in, but when they do, I can do a 180 so fast that people get hit by the shrapnel. :-)

  1. I have changed the icon from to ... this reflects the paradigm shift from "warning" to "information".
  2. I have changed the default header generated by {{Warn-article}} from

    == Warning: This article lacks WP:A to establish WP:N == … or WP:BIO, WP:CORP, etc.

    to

    == Notice: This article lacks WP:A to establish WP:N ==

  3. I have changed the default header generated by {{Warn-editor}} from

    == Tagging Article-name for deletion ==

    to

    == Tagging Article-name for further review ==

Yeah, forget "Deletion warnings" and instead think, "FYI - marking for later" ... the next section is a demo of the latest version of the templates using Warn-bio ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Using {{Warn-article}} with (People), e.g.
{{subst:Warn-article|Lynn Huggins - Cooper|People|header=1}} —~~~~

[edit] Notice: This article lacks WP:A to establish WP:BIO

In my opinion, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for Biographies, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, although I am nonetheless willing to assist the author, Lynn Huggins - Cooper (talk · contribs), to make constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Using {{Warn-editor}} with (People) and noassist, e.g.
{{subst:Warn-editor |Lynn Huggins-Cooper |People |header=1 |noassist=1}} {{subst:Anon-sig|151.200.237.53}}

[edit] Flagging Lynn Huggins-Cooper for further review

Hello, Flag-article … I recently encountered the article about Lynn Huggins-Cooper and in my opinion, it either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for Biographies, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it violates a copyright.

I am considering tagging Lynn Huggins-Cooper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion according to the Deletion policy … I do not have time to examine the article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

I have created this initial entry on your Talk page because you are either the original author of the article, or else a recent contributor to it; I will leave more detailed information regarding my specific concerns about the article on its Discussion page … please respond either there or on this Talk page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

Be sure to read Ownership of articles, and remember that other editors may not share your opinion about the notability of the article's subject.

I do not mean to imply that your contribution is unappreciated … perhaps you should read Your first article … and remember, there was a time when I knew less about how Wikipedia works than you know right now, and I am always available to help you become a more proactive contributor.

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 04:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] improvements!

The current wording, is certainly a better approach--just as you said it would be. I'm still puzzled by the multiple choices:

as an Academics, Biographies, Organizations and companies, Fiction, Music, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

because I think it would be much more helpful to have the template say just what the main problem is. When I first started sending people warnings, I used a long partially pre-built text which I modified each time, but where I tried to modify it to show all the improvements that were needed. I've stopped doing so--I now say just what the main problem is (often, "what it needs most is some 3rd party book references to show that its notable" in the hope that by not overwhelming the user it will get at least the key improvement made, rather than the article abandoned--all too many people write inadequate articles that could be improved, but when they run into what looks like a major critical attack such as they would get from a strict teacher, they abandon them instead. So what I think this needs is focus, even if it take multiple variants to do this.

But perhaps I am misunderstanding how it is intended to be used; for perhaps it is intended to select one when actually leaving the template. I dont see how to do it though--perhaps you could explain just what you have in mind on how to use it. DGG (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

<Sigh!> OK, we start with Warn-templates, and let's say that an article authored by User:DGG looks suspicious re: WP:CORP ... we really don't have time right now to look at it in depth, or to try to clean it up ... we might tag it for deletion later, but we're not sure right now ... in the mean time, we use Warn-inc, and the 1st Step template is:
{{subst:Warn-article |DGG |Companies |header=1}} —~~~~
that generates this on the article's discussion page ((a) it's specific to WP:CORP, (b) it mentions WP:COI and WP:COPYVIO as possible problems, and (c) it doesn't prevent you for adding a specific concern before your signature):

[edit] Notice: This article lacks WP:A to establish WP:CORP

In my opinion, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for Organizations and companies, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist User:DGG  (talk · contribs), and other recent contributors to this article, to make constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I can't be much plainer than that ... yes, it lists several common concerns that might be wrong, or even totally inappropriate for a particular article (like WP:COI), but you can always add one of the more specific warnings as well ... when you come back to look at it a few hours later, it may have improved enough that you're willing to drop it from your watchlist and MOVE ON ... you were just premature in your First Blush evaluation of an incomplete stub of an article ... no harm, no foul. :-) Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change of default behavior ... see: optional parameter

Hello, fellow editors ...

After a suggestion by Some Other Editor, I have made the offer to render assistance optional with the noassist optional parameter ... if you don't feel like offering a helping hand, then it takes just a few keystrokes to delete the offer ... OTOH, WP:AGF necessitates having the offer as the default behavior ... I have similarly modified Template:Flag-editor. :-)

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 05:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)