Template talk:Fix: Difference between revisions
From the Kingdom Hearts Wiki, the Kingdom Hearts encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Re.) |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Are you trying to make templates like {{Tname|Images}}, {{Tname|Cleanup}}, {{Tname|Dewikify}}, {{Tname|Expand}}, etc., obsolete or what? I ask because it seems to me, that the reasons behind creating this template is already being fulfilled by those templates. --[[User:Hecko X|Hecko X]] 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | Are you trying to make templates like {{Tname|Images}}, {{Tname|Cleanup}}, {{Tname|Dewikify}}, {{Tname|Expand}}, etc., obsolete or what? I ask because it seems to me, that the reasons behind creating this template is already being fulfilled by those templates. --[[User:Hecko X|Hecko X]] 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
: That type of template refers to an article or section, but there are some articles that are mostly clean. It’s useful to point out exactly which line requires a source, verification, clarification, etc. —[[User:Shidou|Shidou]] 02:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | : That type of template refers to an article or section, but there are some articles that are mostly clean. It’s useful to point out exactly which line requires a source, verification, clarification, etc. —[[User:Shidou|Shidou]] 02:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
::Aha, I see... however, we tend to use the talk pages for those kind of things. It also reduces the risk of edit wars, given that editors have enough brainpower to read the talk pages (may sound simple, but so many neglegt it). But if you think you can make this work, sure, I'll give you one weeks worth of trial-running, just to see how much this puppy is worth. I should however warn you, that we don't follow the strict procedures of the Wikipedia. --[[User:Hecko X|Hecko X]] 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::I actually think this is a good idea. References, something we would need. [[User:Bluerfn|Blue。]] 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::: Talk pages are useful, but if users neglect the issue it will easily be forgotten. Adding a category to the tag and then tagging the problematic lines will keep track of the article, so users can just check the category instead of searching for old talk pages. I’m going to be bold this time and make some more templates and categories. Hopefully, enough users will start using the tags and we can collectively home in on any lines that need sources, clarification, etc. —[[User:Shidou|Shidou]] 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::I leave it up to the two of you then. When I source something, I usually do it in the summary box and/or the talk page, since I'm not much for cluttering up an article with ref tags, making it "harder" to edit, but do what you must, since you seem a lot more for it than I do. --[[User:Hecko X|Hecko X]] 03:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::On second thought, I'm not actually into this stuff. Referencing is a tedious process, as I have learned in my one year experience with Wikipedia. I would really like it if we could cut it with too much tagging on pages. This is based on my experience in WIkipedia, where a lot of the game article I handle is forever tagged and no one seems to bother to do anything about it. Make as much template as you like, but if I don't see a good use for it, consider it deleted. [[User:Bluerfn|Blue。]] 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:51, 17 January 2008
Are you trying to make templates like {{Images}}, {{Cleanup}}, {{Dewikify}}, {{Expand}}, etc., obsolete or what? I ask because it seems to me, that the reasons behind creating this template is already being fulfilled by those templates. --Hecko X 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- That type of template refers to an article or section, but there are some articles that are mostly clean. It’s useful to point out exactly which line requires a source, verification, clarification, etc. —Shidou 02:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Aha, I see... however, we tend to use the talk pages for those kind of things. It also reduces the risk of edit wars, given that editors have enough brainpower to read the talk pages (may sound simple, but so many neglegt it). But if you think you can make this work, sure, I'll give you one weeks worth of trial-running, just to see how much this puppy is worth. I should however warn you, that we don't follow the strict procedures of the Wikipedia. --Hecko X 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I actually think this is a good idea. References, something we would need. Blue。 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Talk pages are useful, but if users neglect the issue it will easily be forgotten. Adding a category to the tag and then tagging the problematic lines will keep track of the article, so users can just check the category instead of searching for old talk pages. I’m going to be bold this time and make some more templates and categories. Hopefully, enough users will start using the tags and we can collectively home in on any lines that need sources, clarification, etc. —Shidou 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I leave it up to the two of you then. When I source something, I usually do it in the summary box and/or the talk page, since I'm not much for cluttering up an article with ref tags, making it "harder" to edit, but do what you must, since you seem a lot more for it than I do. --Hecko X 03:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- On second thought, I'm not actually into this stuff. Referencing is a tedious process, as I have learned in my one year experience with Wikipedia. I would really like it if we could cut it with too much tagging on pages. This is based on my experience in WIkipedia, where a lot of the game article I handle is forever tagged and no one seems to bother to do anything about it. Make as much template as you like, but if I don't see a good use for it, consider it deleted. Blue。 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I leave it up to the two of you then. When I source something, I usually do it in the summary box and/or the talk page, since I'm not much for cluttering up an article with ref tags, making it "harder" to edit, but do what you must, since you seem a lot more for it than I do. --Hecko X 03:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Talk pages are useful, but if users neglect the issue it will easily be forgotten. Adding a category to the tag and then tagging the problematic lines will keep track of the article, so users can just check the category instead of searching for old talk pages. I’m going to be bold this time and make some more templates and categories. Hopefully, enough users will start using the tags and we can collectively home in on any lines that need sources, clarification, etc. —Shidou 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- I actually think this is a good idea. References, something we would need. Blue。 03:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Aha, I see... however, we tend to use the talk pages for those kind of things. It also reduces the risk of edit wars, given that editors have enough brainpower to read the talk pages (may sound simple, but so many neglegt it). But if you think you can make this work, sure, I'll give you one weeks worth of trial-running, just to see how much this puppy is worth. I should however warn you, that we don't follow the strict procedures of the Wikipedia. --Hecko X 03:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
