132:", it begins. What the hell has that got to do with George Bush? And the vandalism word is even linked up to an internal project page about vandalism on Knowledge (XXG). As if we ask the reader to click on it and learn more, as if we want the reader to stop reading what she really came here to learn about. Or, rather, not even begin reading about it. That she should learn about vandalism on Knowledge (XXG) first. Then it continues, in bold this time to really get the reader's attention: "
196:
87:
259:
is, simply put, unencyclopedic. It is thankfully not put on top of many articles, but is used way too much to "warn" readers that some section will actually contain information about what the section title says it has information on. What are we—some Usenet group or movie blog? If readers want to get
241:
The current tag is not as evil as the protection tags, as it is not self referential and it does tell something about the article content. But we report this (often very obvious) fact too prominently by starting the article with this flashy box. So it's a tag that should be the exception, rather than
229:
of all these articles. My biggest beef is with the latter. Sure, information about living people or existing countries or whatever might change. They are after all alive and do and experience new stuff all the time. But, first of all, that's a given, and second it's usually minor parts of the article
156:
As I write this, there are 86 articles that begin with this evil note, and then some who have the equally evil full protection box on top. Many of them very prominent and much read articles. And the number is increasing. We should remove them all. In my opinion a small icon, like the FA status star,
152:
We have to stop being this self-centered. We have to stop assuming that people are so interested in
Knowledge (XXG) process that we can continue to pollute articles with these tags, forcing readers to learn stuff they don't and shouldn't care about. The top of the page is the most important place of
246:
fast. What was current to the editor, is not necessarily so to the reader (think print, forks, off line copies). Instead of writing "Mr X is currently awaiting trial", we can be more precise by writing "As of April 2006, Mr X is awaiting trial". The latter will always be a true statement, while the
160:
We don't tag
Featured Articles with a big wordy box exactly because wise people have realized that it would be distracting. But informing the readers that the article they read has passed peer review and is considered good would defend some reader distraction much more than the vandalism protection
237:
And adding it to people who recently died is just bad taste and really silly. I have lost count of how many times I have removed it from recently deceased people's bios just to see it being added back a short time later by well meaning but often very new editors who believe the tag should be there
266:, they don't need to have this spoiler tag tell them that the plot section will actually be about the plot. On articles about classical topics like this, they look especially silly. Yeah, both Romeo and Juliet die. Now I've told you. But I believe you knew that. And you'll still enjoy the play.
175:
As an administrator I protect pages from time to time because of vandalism. I usually try to make protections short lived, but even if they last for several hours, you will never see me add any sprotect or vprotect box on top of them. I refuse to ruin articles with them and to contribute to the
145:
about the president. She didn't come here to edit. Very, very few people actually do. We are here for the readers, not for ourselves. The oh-so-important note ends with instructions on how to discuss changes and how and where unprotections are requested on
Knowledge (XXG), again linked to some
165:. But the star is enough for FA's, and a small icon, a lock or something, should be more than enough to inform Knowledge (XXG) editors about any protection being in place. Of course, people will find out about the protection if they try to edit anyway, so even an icon is slightly redundant.
221:
happened and news about bombs, terrorists and victims came in by the minute. This was a reasonable article to have such a template on top of. It really was a progressing event, information changed all the time and flagging it with this tag was worthy of some reader distraction.
120:
This is how the article on the
American president begins. With a screaming, obstructive note that has nothing to do with the president whatsoever. It's completely irrelevant and wastes the reader's time and moves his attention over to things he didn't come here to learn about.
32:
This was written some years ago. It is outdated in its specific examples as some of the tags mentioned have changed or are gone now. But, sadly, the tagging of articles with big off topic and distracting boxes meant for editors, has not gone. It is more frequent than ever.
269:
We are an encyclopedia. We offer people information. If someone wants to remain ignorant about something, then they shouldn't read the part of an article that tells them these things. Like the plot section on a movie or a book. I doubt there are many spoiler warnings in
247:
first will be outdated and wrong the moment the trial begins. Even if most articles are timely updated on
Knowledge (XXG), we should be cautious when using words and tags that depend on it for the content to be factual.
62:
As with many things and customs on
Knowledge (XXG), the use of tags is contagious; they are now being added more frequently, and in places where they originally weren't intended to be used. We should reverse this trend.
75:
and turns to our encyclopedia to read about him. Now, what is the first thing this reader will see when she opens the George W. Bush article? It's the following note, all framed, with a gif, and looking very important:
230:
that stand the risk of being changed due to new events the next hours. If we really need to tag articles with this "might change rapidly" tag, we should limit it to the sections where it is relevant using the
238:
since they heard about the death of this old man in the news. The tagging infection has reached even the deceased. But the old man is dead. He isn't "current" anymore. And he certainly isn't an "event".
277:
Checking a few book and movie articles on the German
Knowledge (XXG), I can't find a single spoiler warning there. I wouldn't be surprised if the Germans have got this right as well.
141:". Another irrelevant fact, and yet another link to something completely unrelated to the topic the reader wants to learn about. Why the hell should the reader care?! She came to
243:
55:
Most boxlike templates (commonly called "tags") that are placed at the top of articles in
Knowledge (XXG) should be removed or made into small icons. The tags are
59:, distracting, off topic and ugly. They make the articles look less professional and weaken the impression of readers that they are reading an encyclopedia.
149:
I won't even go into how we are actually lying to the reader here by using the words "temporarily" and "recent vandalism", as it's beside the point.
110:
218:
136:
101:
106:
234:
template instead. If we have to use it at all. Readers aren't stupid. They know that information on living people might change.
168:
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the
Germans have understood this. On the excellent German Knowledge (XXG) the
231:
146:
internal
Knowledge (XXG) page I absolutely wouldn't care about if I just wanted to learn about George W. Bush.
185:
169:
225:
But now people tend to add it to everything and everyone that is remotely "in the news". And they put in
127:
95:
242:
the rule for topics in the news. Finally, we should use the "current" word with caution in articles. It
256:
317:
188:, including hundreds of living people bios, and even some dead ones. The box looks like this:
262:
38:
56:
203:
72:
311:
195:
302:
34:
17:
274:. I haven't checked, but would be very surprised if there are any at all.
161:
tags do. It would tell the reader something quite important about the
172:
is put on the talk page and kept away from polluting article space.
86:
85:
184:
The current tag is also a spreading infection. It's now
210:
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.
157:
should be enough to flag something being protected.
135:
editing of this page by new or unregistered users is
100:
editing of this page by new or unregistered users is
153:any article. We shouldn't put stuff there lightly.
292:The wording and links changes from time to time
217:It was originally made and first used when the
176:spreading tagging disease on Knowledge (XXG).
8:
98:, or to stop blocked editors from editing,
190:
81:
130:, or to stop blocked editors from editing
285:
7:
219:11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings
105:. Changes can be discussed on the
24:
71:Say someone wants to learn about
260:information about Shakespeare's
194:
41:) 09:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
1:
67:The vandalism protection tags
93:
84:
334:
305:01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
202:This article documents a
186:all over Knowledge (XXG)
272:Encyclopædia Britannica
126:As a result of recent
94:As a result of recent
90:
89:
137:temporarily disabled
111:request unprotection
102:temporarily disabled
91:
215:
214:
211:
117:
116:
325:
293:
290:
263:Romeo and Juliet
209:
198:
191:
82:
57:self referential
333:
332:
328:
327:
326:
324:
323:
322:
308:
307:
300:
298:
296:
291:
287:
283:
253:
251:The spoiler tag
232:current section
208:
182:
180:The current tag
170:protection note
163:article content
119:
79:
69:
54:
52:
50:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
331:
329:
321:
320:
310:
309:
295:
294:
284:
282:
279:
252:
249:
213:
212:
199:
181:
178:
115:
114:
92:
73:George W. Bush
68:
65:
48:
47:
46:
45:
44:
43:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
330:
319:
316:
315:
313:
306:
304:
299:
289:
286:
280:
278:
275:
273:
267:
265:
264:
258:
250:
248:
245:
239:
235:
233:
228:
223:
220:
207:
205:
204:current event
200:
197:
193:
192:
189:
187:
179:
177:
173:
171:
166:
164:
158:
154:
150:
147:
144:
140:
139:
138:
131:
129:
122:
112:
109:, or you can
108:
104:
103:
97:
88:
83:
80:
77:
74:
66:
64:
60:
58:
51:
42:
40:
36:
30:
29:
28:
27:
26:
25:
19:
301:
297:
288:
276:
271:
268:
261:
254:
240:
236:
226:
224:
216:
201:
183:
174:
167:
162:
159:
155:
151:
148:
142:
134:
133:
125:
123:
118:
99:
78:
70:
61:
53:
49:
31:
318:User essays
257:spoiler tag
18:User:Shanes
128:vandalism
107:talk page
96:vandalism
312:Category
244:gets old
303:Shanes
227:on top
35:Shanes
16:<
281:Note
255:The
143:read
39:talk
314::
113:.
206:.
124:"
37:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
