Wikipedia talk:Template guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Policy proposal - Discuss use of message templates

There's lots of people going around using message templates such as cleanup, and merge, cite references, in manner which I consider to be rather slapdash, and detrimental to the quality of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Maybe an article isn't perfect, but with a big ugly message at the top saying it requires cleanup, it will give a very bad impression to any newcomers. These messages make wikipedia look bad. It's fine if they get resolved and removed fairly quickly, but these messages tend to get left there, and either people don't fix the problem, or the problem gradually gets fixed, but nobody has the confidence to remove the message.

See also discussed on Wikipedia talk:Merging and moving pages#Stale Merge Requests

I want to propose a policy that any use of such message tags should be accompanied by a Talk page discussion post explaining why in more detail, and that any messages which do not have an acompanying talk page explanation, can be removed immediately, on the basis that it was in breach of this policy. The new talk section will have three positive effects:

  • Force people to be a bit more considered in their use of such messages in the first place.
  • Commence discussion, which should help resolve the issue (particularly in the case of merges)
  • Allow people to be more bold in removing messages by judging the original issue to be resolved.

The first point is the most important. I get the impression there are people swinging by and slapping messages everywhere, on articles which they have no intention of revisiting. I'm sure there are those who will want to defend this freedom, but in my opinion such behaviour should be discouraged.

I think it's a fairly big change which will require some discussion. So the first question is. Where should I put my policy proposal? We can discuss it right here, but maybe it can be included on this Wikipedia:Template guidelines page. Or maybe it should be on its own page? -- Nojer2 09:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)