34:
98:
387:
If the person placing the tag has explained their concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate. If there is no reply within a reasonable amount of time (a few days), the tag can be removed by any editor without a conflict
358:
After the initial problem causing the tag is fixed, the tag may be accidentally left in place. Sometimes problems are solved by inexperienced editors, who incorrectly believe that they must wait for an authority figure to remove the official-looking template. Perhaps the person leaving the tag simply
767:
Knowledge's article classification system sorts articles by overall quality, and thus is a less obtrusive system for measuring quality, and is used instead of most tags. For example, most C-class articles lack enough references to be B-class, so tagging a C-class article with an article-wide tag for
261:
Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed—is frequently referred to as "drive-by tagging", particularly when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or subjective tags,
540:
For example: You encounter an article that looks like it was copied straight off another website. It may be a copyright violation, cites no references, has formatting problems, contains no links to other articles, and is uncategorized. Tag the article for the biggest problems (i.e., the possible
518:
and is often derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. However, it is not actually "drive-by tagging" so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page. Where there is disagreement, both sides should attempt to discuss the
444:
policy. In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there
131:
is a vital part in a collaborative project like
Knowledge, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged. Knowledge values contributions from everyone—novices and experts alike. It is important to listen to readers who find an article biased, confusing or unconvincing. They might not have the
116:
object to the practice of tagging instead of fixing, but there is value in pointing out an article's problems. Tagging allows editors to specialize, teaches editors and warns readers about subpar or problematic content. It is better if people solve the problems they encounter themselves, but not
606:
Non-specific tags tend to linger because editors, especially new editors, can't figure out what to fix. If there are concrete, specific problems, try to use a tag that clearly indicates your concern. If no such tag exists, make sure that you leave a comment on the article's talk page or in a
526:
includes a list of many commonly used tags as well as advice on when they may be appropriate and what sorts of things one can say on the talk page to help others see that every tag makes sense for the article. Here are four specific warning signs of overtagging:
299:
By contrast, adding tags for obvious, major flaws can be helpful. However, if an article has insufficient references or other issues, then pointing this out with a tag may not result in the problem being fixed. It may be better to
535:
It is very rare that more than two or three tags are needed, even on the worst articles. Adding more tags usually results in all of them being ignored. Focus your attention on the most important one or two issues.
723:. When you have a choice of two tags, one that says kind of what you want to say and one that says exactly what you want to say, use the one that says exactly what you want to say. Don't use them both.
615:
For example: Many different tags might apply to a messy, poorly written article. Whenever possible, try to find one that most clearly explains what you think is wrong with the article. For example,
307:
There is no requirement in
Knowledge policies that editors must "pay their dues" by working on an article before they can add a tag, so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page.
166:
Before you add a tag, make sure that the tag is necessary. If possible, fix small problems yourself rather than tagging and leaving an article (see the section on constructive tagging for more detail).
436:, often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Knowledge policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does
736:, even if the article could be expanded or improved. Use your best judgment and consider all of the facts and circumstances. Will the tag prompt a positive improvement? If not, then skip it.
412:. Similarly, editors occasionally remove tags without solving real problems because they are embarrassed by the tag, do not want additional attention from other editors, or do not like tags.
180:
Most tags go at the top of articles, but some may be placed under section headings or elsewhere. Click your cursor in the article where you would like to place the tag, and then click
380:), any challenged statement should not be restored (in this case, detagged) without a citation to a reliable source. Redundant tagging or overtagging can, however, be a problem. See
758:
this article? If not, then don't bother tagging it, because such a tag is unhelpful. You would be recommending that the editor do something that you believe cannot be done.
771:
Article-wide tags should be mostly used for start and stub articles. However, article wide tags for subtle, but specified, problems is nearly always appropriate.
514:
Adding tags for non-obvious problems without discussion on the talk page which explains where the problems are is arguably not helpful. It can be viewed as
272:, it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary. It can be helpful to refer to applicable content policies, such as
511:
a means of improving the encyclopedia: It is only a means of asking other people to improve an article that you cannot or will not improve yourself.
195:
box to find the appropriate template to tag the article with. Lists of frequently used templates can be found in the section above, 'Lists of tags'.
57:; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Knowledge's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of
554:
Avoid adding two tags to the same article, section or passage that essentially mean the same thing, in whole or in part. For example, do not add
496:. Placing vague tags on articles results in confusion and discouragement more often than it results in improving the encyclopedia. Just look at
445:
is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when
440:
mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the
42:
811:
678:
If the tag doesn't say exactly what you want it to say, then don't use it! If no tag exists for the specific problem, then either
106:"Tags" should be used to clearly identify problems with Knowledge pages to indicate to other editors that improvements are needed.
289:
351:), it is wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal and to identify your action in an appropriately detailed
806:
147:
337:
does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. Except in very obvious cases (such as removing
483:
256:
141:
19:
This page is about tags that users insert in articles. For information on tags that robots insert in edit histories, see
400:
Whether a tag should be placed on an article is sometimes the subject of disputes. Occasionally, editors place tags to
132:
expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report them probably means that an article needs improvement.
54:
333:
Any editor without a conflict of interest who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article
277:
285:
273:
50:
785:
523:
117:
everyone may be able to. Editors are sometimes obliged to justify inclusion of tags, such as in the case of
62:
153:
780:
169:
On the article you want to tag, click "Edit" to start the process of adding a tag. Whether you are using
687:
653:
626:
625:
can describe a laundry list of problems, but you might be able to find a more specific tag by perusing
488:
It is best to provide few of the most specific possible tags. Placing too many tags on an article is
578:
366:
293:
281:
246:
755:
473:
341:
211:
156:
contains tags used within the body of an article to mark a specific sentence or piece of prose.
150:
contains tags frequently used to mark articles that may violate a
Knowledge policy in some way.
124:
239:
694:
568:
558:
388:
of interest. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per
113:
198:
Select the template you want and fill in any boxes that require more information within the
466:
232:
80:
446:
8:
717:
707:
663:
643:
389:
377:
324:
58:
762:
497:
458:
316:
224:
72:
790:
679:
633:
542:
489:
362:
Be wary of removing tags related to sourcing issues, particularly specific ones like
301:
727:
619:
588:
549:
218:
748:
733:
595:
530:
493:
401:
348:
128:
423:
procedures. Start by engaging in a calm discussion on the article's talk page.
741:
441:
20:
395:
800:
266:
740:
For example: you notice that an article about a business that barely meets
673:
601:
515:
430:
420:
416:
409:
405:
352:
170:
144:
contains tags frequently used to mark articles needing cleanup in some way.
118:
160:
744:
is not linked to by any other articles, or by only one. You could place
373:
359:
made a bad judgment call, or accidentally linked to the wrong template.
501:
310:
135:
452:
732:
Don't place a tag merely because it's technically permitted.
173:
or editing the page's source text directly, you should see an
447:
the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time
774:
541:
copyright violation). Leave the minor problems, like the
793:, a type of editor frequently engaged in drive-by tagging
686:
For example: you are concerned about an article with 27
206:
button in the top right, and save the page by clicking
713:
might be okay, but the best tag for this situation is
756:
rational expectation that it is possible to de-orphan
754:at the top, but would that help? Do you have any
611:so that other editors know what your concern is.
112:"Tags" are often used to indicate problems. Some
798:
768:lack of references is nearly always redundant.
702:Don't use the unreferenced tag on that article!
574:, and do not flag the same statement with both
564:to an article or section already tagged with
690:, but they're all from the same source. The
682:or leave a note on the article's talk page.
210:in the top right, making sure to leave an
669:? Try to be specific whenever possible.
494:Do not disrupt Knowledge to make a point
700:tag says the article has 0 references.
649:itself? Does it have an inappropriate
492:, disruptive, or may be a violation of
290:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons
799:
148:Knowledge:Template messages/Disputes
92:
28:
484:Knowledge:Template messages/Cleanup
257:Knowledge:Template messages/Cleanup
142:Knowledge:Template messages/Cleanup
13:
598:, and disruptive for our readers.
55:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
14:
823:
500:of an article on Irish rock band
419:over the placement of a tag, use
381:
812:Knowledge essays about templates
177:button near the top of the page.
96:
32:
543:lack of links to other articles
278:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
609:<!-- hidden comment --: -->
347:from an article that has been
286:Knowledge:No original research
274:Knowledge:Conflict of interest
1:
786:Knowledge:Clarify the cleanup
734:Not every article needs a tag
524:Knowledge:Responsible tagging
659:? Does it contain too much
507:Placing tags is, in itself,
154:Template:Inline cleanup tags
7:
807:Knowledge information pages
781:Knowledge:Template messages
10:
828:
627:Category:Cleanup templates
481:
456:
314:
254:
222:
70:
26:Knowledge information page
18:
629:. Does the article need
415:Rather than reverting or
742:the notability guideline
129:civil, respectful manner
104:This page in a nutshell:
763:Alternatives to tagging
282:Knowledge:Verifiability
202:window. Click the blue
504:and see for yourself.
125:Constructive criticism
442:neutral point of view
219:Constructive tagging
51:encyclopedic article
545:, for another time.
426:Some tags, such as
421:dispute resolution
396:Disputes over tags
390:consensus-building
791:Knowledge:WikiImp
654:Criticism section
247:WP:HIT&RUNTAG
114:Knowledge editors
110:
109:
91:
90:
819:
753:
747:
722:
716:
712:
706:
699:
693:
688:inline citations
668:
662:
658:
652:
648:
642:
638:
632:
624:
618:
610:
593:
587:
583:
577:
573:
567:
563:
557:
476:
469:
435:
429:
371:
365:
346:
340:
327:
296:is discouraged.
271:
265:
249:
242:
235:
161:How to add a tag
100:
99:
93:
83:
43:information page
36:
35:
29:
827:
826:
822:
821:
820:
818:
817:
816:
797:
796:
777:
765:
751:
745:
730:
720:
714:
710:
704:
697:
691:
680:fix it yourself
676:
666:
660:
656:
650:
646:
640:
636:
630:
622:
616:
608:
604:
594:. Doing so is
591:
585:
581:
579:citation needed
575:
571:
565:
561:
555:
552:
533:
486:
480:
479:
472:
465:
461:
455:
433:
427:
406:disrupt editing
398:
369:
367:Citation needed
363:
344:
338:
331:
330:
323:
319:
313:
302:fix it yourself
269:
263:
259:
253:
252:
245:
238:
231:
227:
221:
208:Publish changes
163:
138:
97:
87:
86:
79:
75:
67:
66:
33:
27:
24:
17:
16:Knowledge essay
12:
11:
5:
825:
815:
814:
809:
795:
794:
788:
783:
776:
773:
764:
761:
760:
759:
729:
728:Unhelpful tags
726:
725:
724:
675:
672:
671:
670:
603:
600:
551:
550:Redundant tags
548:
547:
546:
532:
529:
478:
477:
474:WP:OVERTAGGING
470:
462:
457:
454:
451:
397:
394:
329:
328:
320:
315:
312:
309:
251:
250:
243:
236:
228:
223:
220:
217:
216:
215:
196:
191:Type into the
189:
178:
167:
162:
159:
158:
157:
151:
145:
137:
134:
108:
107:
101:
89:
88:
85:
84:
76:
71:
68:
48:
47:
39:
37:
25:
21:Knowledge:Tags
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
824:
813:
810:
808:
805:
804:
802:
792:
789:
787:
784:
782:
779:
778:
772:
769:
757:
750:
743:
739:
738:
737:
735:
719:
709:
703:
696:
689:
685:
684:
683:
681:
665:
655:
645:
635:
628:
621:
614:
613:
612:
599:
597:
590:
580:
570:
560:
544:
539:
538:
537:
531:Too many tags
528:
525:
520:
517:
512:
510:
505:
503:
499:
498:this revision
495:
491:
490:"tag-bombing"
485:
475:
471:
468:
464:
463:
460:
450:
448:
443:
439:
432:
424:
422:
418:
413:
411:
407:
403:
393:
391:
385:
383:
382:#Over-tagging
379:
375:
374:Verifiability
368:
360:
356:
354:
350:
343:
342:Uncategorized
336:
326:
322:
321:
318:
311:Removing tags
308:
305:
303:
297:
295:
294:WikiLawyering
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
268:
258:
248:
244:
241:
240:WP:DRIVEBYTAG
237:
234:
230:
229:
226:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:
193:Find template
190:
187:
183:
179:
176:
172:
171:Visual Editor
168:
165:
164:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
139:
136:Lists of tags
133:
130:
126:
122:
120:
115:
105:
102:
95:
94:
82:
78:
77:
74:
69:
64:
60:
56:
53:, nor one of
52:
49:It is not an
46:
44:
38:
31:
30:
22:
770:
766:
731:
701:
695:unreferenced
677:
605:
569:unreferenced
559:no footnotes
553:
534:
521:
513:
508:
506:
487:
453:Over-tagging
437:
425:
417:edit warring
414:
402:make a point
399:
386:
378:WP:CHALLENGE
376:policy (see
372:. Under the
361:
357:
353:edit summary
334:
332:
306:
298:
260:
212:Edit summary
207:
203:
199:
192:
185:
181:
174:
123:
119:Template:POV
111:
103:
40:
639:? Does it
519:situation.
410:tendentious
408:, or to be
349:categorized
127:given in a
41:This is an
801:Categories
718:One source
708:Refimprove
674:Wrong tags
664:Repetition
644:Contradict
602:Vague tags
522:The essay
516:disruptive
502:Thin Lizzy
482:See also:
467:WP:OVERTAG
255:See also:
233:WP:DRIVEBY
81:WP:TAGGING
596:WP:POINTy
459:Shortcuts
292:, though
225:Shortcuts
59:consensus
775:See also
634:Sections
325:WP:DETAG
317:Shortcut
262:such as
186:Template
73:Shortcut
620:cleanup
589:dubious
384:below.
63:vetting
749:Orphan
204:Insert
200:Insert
182:Insert
175:Insert
404:, to
288:, or
184:: -->
584:and
267:npov
61:and
509:not
438:not
431:POV
335:and
803::
752:}}
746:{{
721:}}
715:{{
711:}}
705:{{
698:}}
692:{{
667:}}
661:{{
657:}}
651:{{
647:}}
641:{{
637:}}
631:{{
623:}}
617:{{
592:}}
586:{{
582:}}
576:{{
572:}}
566:{{
562:}}
556:{{
449:.
434:}}
428:{{
392:.
370:}}
364:{{
355:.
345:}}
339:{{
304:.
284:,
280:,
276:,
270:}}
264:{{
121:.
214:.
188:.
65:.
45:.
23:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.