Template talk:Inappropriate tone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can this be renamed {{tone}} or something? — Omegatron 06:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

writing {{tone}} has the same effect --FlareNUKE 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup?

What's the point of adding the cleanup part? It just nullifies the use since we could just use regular cleanup.

[edit] Reference please

This article may not be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry.

Where? In the style guide lines, I couldn't find anything on the inappropriateness of using formal tone! Please, be more specific when you refer to guide lines. Don't refer to just a general category of many, many style guide pages. I almost feel like tagging this tag with {{not verified}}

Also, no further reason whatsoever is given why specifically 'this article' is not allowed to be formal of tone, and why you make exceptions to your rule for other articles.

-- ActiveSelective 08:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, (IIANM) the template tries to say that the article is not written in a formal tone, and how is that a problem, not that the problem is that it is formal. But it also tries to be very polite, so it does not say "the article is badly written", it says "the article is maybe badly written". And, in effect, the template could have been understood in the exact opposite sense. I tried to reformulate it (although I think the best idea would be to drop the excessive politeness), take a look at it, please. --Mormegil 08:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha, funny, a case of incorrect grammar changing the meaning. User:ActiveSelective interpreted "may not be" in the sense of permission as in "you may do this". What the sentence meant to say was that the article might not be such-and-such, meaning that "it seems to be" so-and-so. Fortunately, as of now the sentence has been revised to avoid this goof. 24.19.184.243 09:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a single word in the style guides does mention any "formal tone". The single instance of "tone" is in "News style ... Encyclopedia articles do not have to follow news style". Indeed: Wikipedia does not bind itself to pseudo-informed formalism. So this template as a whole is complete nonsense. --Jhartmann 09:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the cleanup template to avoid potential ambiguity: if this template is transcluded to an article, it won't be clear that the {{not verified}} tag applies to the {{inappropriate tone}} tag and not the article. I propose the following rewrite to address your concern:

--Muchness 10:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It still seems to convey the message "what you've written is rubbish, but I can't be bothered even discussing how to improve it". Here's my suggestion for a tag to be added to the talk page:

--dave souza, talk 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page

I think, as an comment to editors of a page and not to the readers, this template ought to go at the top of the talk page not the article page. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree. .. dave souza, talk 12:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this kind of tag do not belong in the articles. Articles should be discussed on the talk page, not in the articles them self.

Non-editors should not have to scroll past one or more ugly tags before they get to the actual article. As I see it this kind of tag often makes more damage than the "problem" the tag is pointing out. The tag is confusing and scary for non-editors and as such very detrimental. The only "benefit" this kind of tag has is that it puts the article in a clean-up category, but for that purpose it works just as well to put a tag on the talk page.

My experience is that people who slab this kind of tag on an article often do not write an explanation on the talk page what they find is the problem and don't ever bother to fix the problem. I find that lazy, to complain but not fix.

--David Göthberg 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

"This article or section seems not to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry."

Can we change it to something like This article or section does not seem to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry. or something less awkward? The current wording really makes me mad. --D-Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 14:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unwelcome annoyance without useful advice

This tag advertises at the head of the article the editor's vague personal opinion that the style isn't right, and links to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles which only mentions tone once, in the context of the option (NOT requirement) of using News style, which itself gives little or no guidance about "tone". There's a case for listing articles for cleanup to draw in help, and this can usefully be done with tags on the talk pages of articles, but this tag on the article itself is at best an irritation and insult to editors who have put considerable effort into improving the article. If you see faults in the article, the best things to do are to edit it, or draw attention on the talk page to exactly what problem you find. Wikipedia can have a problem with knowledgeable or expert editors being driven away by the stress and tediousness of dealing with vandalism and pov pushing. Use of this tag, while no doubt well intentioned, has the same effect and can be more damage than help. I'll try to think of ways of rewording this tag, possibly along the more neutral lines of cleanup with an indication that it should go on the talk page. It should perhaps be added that this came up in the context of it being added to articles which arguably are lively and interesting, but which had been admired as an improvement or asset by very experienced editors. ...dave souza, talk 12:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree. There are many templates like this that are placed in articles to call attention to specific things that need to be addressed. It is quite useful, especially for an encyclopedia that everyone is allowed to edit. I have used it before on articles with content that has been pasted from an older public-domain source (like the 1911 encyclopedia) that used more florid language than is customary for today's encyclopedias. It doesn't mean the content is bad, just that the language or writing style should be worked on. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are not going to take this template as a personal insult and be driven from the project. I agree, the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page can be expanded to provide more details and help about this. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• I also disagree. Any problem with the 'Tone' tag has, in my admittedly limited (1 example) experience, been based more with the character of an editor in an unreasonable reaction to the placing of the tag than in any flaw based within the tag itself. Frankly, no editor who is incapable of quite succinctly winning an argument with someone who is comparatively (or supposedly) ignorant deserves to be considered an "expert" - I find the suggestion that expert users are being forced out of wikipedia by pov pushing ludicrous for this very reason. With regard to how this issue became an issue i agree wholeheartedly with JW1805 that the vast majority of wikipedians would not take this tag as a personal insult - and that there are those who do/would is a condemnation of their character rather than of the tag itself. As for improving the tag i certainly think this is possible. It should probably be expected that anytime the tag is placed it is accompanied by a detailed explanation of exactly why it has been placed upon the talk page of an article for starters. siarach 21:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see general agreement that the tag had problems: I've made a minimal modification to make it match the guidance it links to: improved guidance on "tone" in the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles will be welcome, though such a change should of course be carefully discussed to reach consensus. The problem of getting editors placing the tag to clarify their concerns on the talk page has not been addressed: suggestions for this would be welcome. ..dave souza, talk 17:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is inappropriate tone?

As various editors have pointed out, there is no guidance as to the mysterious "tone" or official requirement for this "tone" to meet some editor's tastes. This is something that can be discussed on the talk page of the guide to writing better articles, not a vague label to stick on articles where you personally don't like the style. ..dave souza, talk 19:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is rather clear; it is certainly much clearer than "improvement in writing style", which could mean just about anything. Encyclopedic tone does not mean simply "well-written". Don't revert to implement a change that everyone but you has disagreed with. —Centrx→talk • 21:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately your thought that is is rather clear is not matched by any guidance as to what is meant, and in practice this is a matter of individual taste. If an editor cleaning up can't see what the problem is by reading the article, they're hardly likely to share that taste and they're not going to be in a position to mind read the editor who added the tag: As siarach says, "It should probably be expected that anytime the tag is placed it is accompanied by a detailed explanation of exactly why it has been placed upon the talk page of an article for starters." The change was proposed in principle in the #Reference please section above to meet concerns expressed by other editors, and no objections were raised. In the #Unwelcome annoyance without useful advice section two editors disagreed with my description of the problem, hardly surprising as they had added the tags in the incident which drew this to my attention. Of them, one agreed that "As for improving the tag i certainly think this is possible" without commenting either way on my proposal, while the other agreed that "the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page can be expanded to provide more details and help about this". So far such expansion has not been made or even discussed. Your objection is noted, and in the interim I've adjusted the tag to make the guidance situation clear. My proposed tag is shown below for discussion. ...dave souza, talk 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If the editor cleaning up thinks it is in an encyclopedic tone, they can just remove the tag. A whole policy page is not needed for every little quality tag. —Centrx→talk • 17:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revised tag

In my opinion this proposed tag alerts editors to the opinion that improvement is needed in a positive way, and as discussed above editors who have a particular issue with "tone" can add a comment to the talk page clarifying their concern rather than leaving authors to hunt in vain for guidance or possibly giving the impression that a critic is attacking their writing abilities. ..dave souza, talk 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose – this does not mention the main problem this template is all about – not the “quality” of the article in general, but specifically its style itself. A humoristic science fiction novel might have its style perfected, nevertheless, it does not fit into an encyclopedia. This template should say the style of this article is… well… different from that you are used to in a serious encyclopedia. --Mormegil 16:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed archnemesis tag

[edit] Requested edit: "article or section" parameter

I would like to request that the "article or section" language be updated with optional data field parameter. Most cleanup templates provide this option. Specifically, should be "{{{1|article or section}}}". Thank you,  Satori Son 17:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Luna Santin 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formal tone

I added a generic description of formal tone to the Guide to writing better articles in the Other issues section. This should help address the fact that this template sent people on a wild goose chase looking for guidance. It basically just says to follow WP:RS:

Formal tone 

Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. The standards for formal tone will vary depending on the subject matter, but should follow the style typically used by reliable sources in the subject area. Formal tone does not mean that the article should be written in unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or that it should be filled with jargon; it simply means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner. Dhaluza 11:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just for information, Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Information style and tone now gives the needed guidance, with the shortcut WP:TONE linking to the tone subsection. ... dave souza, talk 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

Would an admin please edit this protected template to wikilink formal tone as in {{Inappropriate person}}. Dhaluza 02:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please wikilink "formal tone" to WP:TONE Dhaluza 00:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking, have done the latter. ...... dave souza, talk 09:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

{{editprotected}} Please remove {{potentialvanity}} from see also as it is deprecated. – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, Garion96 (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding weirdness

The text presently reads:

The lack of boldness is off-putting. It should probably be:

Could an admin fix this? --Elyscape 11:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the template to reflect usage

I've been looking through some of the pages tagged with {{Inappropriate tone}}, and it seems that only a minority of them are actually written in an excessively informal tone. Some have problems that aren't really about tone as such -- they're written like instruction manuals, or have some neutral point-of-view issues. In those that do have problems with tone, often the issue has nothing at all to do with formality. The tone may be essay-like, yet perfectly formal. Often the template is used to mark the kind of style that you get in older scholarship or reference works like the 1911 Britannica; above, JW1805 gave this as an example of what the tag ought to be used for. Yet this kind of writing is actually very formal and scholarly -- it's just dated in most people's view.

In some cases -- about a third of those I looked at -- I was unable to figure out why the tag had been placed at all, even after digging around in history to find out what the article looked like when it was placed. The editors who tagged these articles presumably thought something was wrong with them, but we may never know what that was. The tag will sit there until someone gets around to removing it, annoying the editors who wrote the article (as User:dave souza pointed out above) while accomplishing nothing constructive.

I suggest changing the text of this tag to better reflect actual usage, to encourage explaining the issues in talk, and to avoid the impression that it represents a judgment from some impartial authority (rather than one editor's possibly idiosyncratic view). How about:

—Celithemis 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I ran into another one of these recently: Simon Mayor. This has a problematic tone, yes, but the problem is not really one of formality; it's more a matter of non-neutral tone. The template, as it stands, would probably just confuse the person who wrote the article.

Unless there are any objections to the above language, I'll place an editprotected request soon. —Celithemis 02:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, and given the lack of objections so far will implement the change. .. dave souza, talk 08:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I just copy-edited the template to remove the fluff. The word "may" is sufficient, not to mention the obvious fact that an editor would have had to express concern to place the tag in the first place. — Deckiller 16:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General Clean up

{{editprotect}} please remove the Template:Not verified and Template:Unsourced from the see also section as they redirect to other listed templates. additionally please use Wikipedia:Transclusion for the non-template content of this template. Jeepday (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to talk page section

This template should have a mandatory talk page section parameter. Otherwise it's just another pastel box that doesn't help anyone fix the problem. Shinobu (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tracking category

{{editprotected}}

Please add the tracking category Category:All articles needing style editing between the includeonly tags. Thanks. MER-C 08:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres^{t.l} 12:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)