Template talk:Maintained/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Redundant with Wikiproject notices?

Hi there. Let me say I think this is a great thing to have around. I was thinking about adding it to game theory articles, but I thought it might be redundant with {{GameTheoryProject}}. Should instead of adding this template to those pages, should we modify {{GameTheoryProject}} to say something similar? I was thinking something like "Contact one of the members about verifying the content of this article." What do you think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The problem with that is that there aren't WikiProjects for all article subjects, and even within a broad project, it is unlikely someone will be of any use to specific subtopics that have been lumped into that project. Also, I'd rather that readers have a direct link to Email someone for verification/sources, rather than have to jump through jargon hoops. Nobody is being forced to add this template to any article. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 01:30
    • I dig it. I think it is important to have for articles that fall through the Wikiproject "cracks". Also, I see what you mean for large projects. I think I'll probably take it up with the game theory project to see whats folks think we should do with our articles. I just wanted to raise this as an alternative possibility to achieve a similar result. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

List of articles problem

One problem is, say I maintain 20 or 30 articles out of my 2000 article watchlist.. then 6 months from now I decide to take an extended break from Wikipedia (inevitable for everyone) .. I will never rember which articles on some dark December evening 6 months ago I signed up to maintain.. and thus the template causes more harm than good. Of course, if I could see which articles I maintain, then myself (or someone else), could easily remove them when it comes time to stop maintaining. --Stbalbach 04:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You can create a template at User:Stbalbach/maintenance which contains only: Stbalbach (talk • contribs • email) . Then, use that in this template. Then you can see "What links here" to see your maintained list. If you want to remove your name from all the lists, just blank your template. Or, you can put in a message such as "on break until March", so people know not to contact you. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 05:00
Hey cool! You should write up instructions and make that the default/only way. Otherwise theres no way to track whose maintaining what. That data is very key and important for a lot of reasons and makes this template a lot more valuable. --Stbalbach 05:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Done. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 05:39

OK I will

Based on the following conversation I will. WAS 4.250 06:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The conversation from village pump news

This is what a fence looks like in cyberspace. It is used to identify a piece of cyberspace as "mine", as property. We can now own shares of articles. I'll let you on my list if you let me on yours. Can I be an absentee landlord and have my name on thousands of lists but contract out the management to others? You laugh now. The American Indians laughed at the absurd European notions of "owning" land... WAS 4.250 05:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Er.. the point of the template is to identify the editors currently working on the article. It doesn't discourage other editors, indeed, it encourages them to talk to these editors, find out what they need help with, etc.. Not everything will lead to the fall of Wikipedia (and comparing interaction on Wikipedia to the interaction between Native Americans and Europeans is at best, laughable, and at worst, offensive, but that's another point).--Sean|Black 05:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm comparing YOUR attitude concerning wikipedia articles as ownable with year 1700 American Indian attitude concerning land as ownable. The Indians also initially found nothing wrong with the arrangements, as you find nothing wrong with this "consulting" the "identified" (owners). WAS 4.250 05:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

When did I say Wikipedia articles were "ownable"?--Sean|Black 06:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I find the template's purpose unclear and WAS' critique worthy of careful consideration. The template does seem to imply ownership contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines. What exactly should these active guardians be contacted about? Wouldn't a message left on the article's talk page reach the same volunteers, serve the same purpose and be more accessible to later readers? --Dystopos 05:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

o The template lets readers know that the article is being watched for vandalism, and gives readers 1-click easy access to directly email someone knowledgeable on the article's subject. I understand the fine line between saying "contact me for problems" and saying "this is my article", but I don't think this has crossed the line. It is alright to test new things out. We don't have to fear any slight change from the norm. I think this can only strengthen our image of "accountability" and improve our articles. Most people check their email more than their watchlist. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 06:07

o In any case, feel free to suggest wording changes that you think will improve this template. I want it to almost be like a statement that "I confirm that the current state of this article is factual, neutral, and verifiable from reliable sources," though maybe not that extreme... yet BRIAN

Interesting

My .02 - I like the idea behind this template, My only concern is that it will be misinterpreted as a statement of ownership (or liabilty) by some. Agnte 11:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Please suggest any changes that can prevent this misinterpretation. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 13:21
    'They may be able to help' was suggested on the TFD page and that's the best one I've heard so far. If you encourage a user to contact a person, then thats where confusion about ownership or liabilty comes in, so this seems a bit nicer. Are you going to maintain this template? :P Agnte 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Changing the wording

I'm not sure if I like the wording "Please contact them regarding verification and sources". Let's say I want to be a maintainer on Evolution. I really don't expect (nor want) people to have to clear sources through me first. I think it should just exist as a notice saying something to the effect of, "This user is super-dedicated to this page. It's like it's on his watchlist to the fourth power." I suggest removing the offending verbiage. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 13:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the new wording better communicates the point of the template, though improvements are probably still possible. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 15:52
    • There's definitely room for improvements here. For what it's worth, I think the general point of the template should be "Users X, Y, and Z know something about this subject and are paying attention to what happens here" rather than "Users X, Y, and Z are in charge of this article"; hopefully the new wording will clear up some of the objections being raised about article ownership. —Kirill Lokshin 16:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I agree. Nobody should be listed as "in charge of" the article. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 16:10

Perhaps rather than trying to explain, in limited template space, what the many reasons are for being a "maintainer", we should create a draft that outlines all the possible reasons someone might want to be a maintainer, and link to the draft from the template. --Stbalbach 16:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My idea for this

i think we should have just a very small explanation text. Something like:

"The folowing users have added this article to their wacthlist: user, user, user, another user. For more information check (insert some project name here)"

Then, in insert some project name here, we could have some disclaimers like "please note these people are volunteers and etc, and we still can't give you a 100% chance that the article is right and etc". The, we could also have a section "For editors", basically asking them to don't put their names on if they don't really watch the article, or remove their names if they stop doing that.

Anyway, I just think that the template text right now need some work. algumacoisaqq 20:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd rather not keep it that vague. It should only be for people who are actively editing Wikipedia, and thus watching the article for all changes. I would also prefer that readers not have to get involved in another whole project just to figure out what the cryptic message means. It would be better to find a couple short sentences that clearly explain the template's intentions: these people are knowledgeable about the subject and its sources, and are watching the article for any vandalisms or counterproductive changes. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-14 20:04

Other templates like this?

I've long thought that this sort of thing should be built into
wikipedia, so I think this will become very popular. There might
be other niches that some similar templates could fill, such as:

  • These users are currently guarding this page against spam
  • These users are currently watching this page for vandalism
  • These users you could consult if you're unsure about something

etc. —Snargle 20:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Finding_out_the_number_of_users_watching_an_article. Theres a link there to meta:Share watchlists. Agnte 20:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The first link above must be archived now... the second is an interesting idea but doesn't really cover the issue like a template could.
There should definitely be an alternative template that just says a person is active in protecting an article from vandalism. Such a statement on the talk page shows not only that they are watching it, but that they will ensure no vandalism finds its way into the article. Ideally every page should have at least one person who has agreed to care for that page and ensure all spam, vandalism etc is blocked. The notice would then serve to stop too many people watching the same article, though of course it wouldn't hurt to have several guarding it from that sort of thing. Editors could see if it was or wasn't being cared for, and if it was they could find another one for themselves so as to be more productive.
The problem with maintained is that is suggests the user is both very active in improving and expanding the article, which they may not have time for, and also that they are an expert in the subject, which many editors will not be. We need a second, more moderate template just to say 'I've got this one covered'.
The template would read something like this: 'The following users have volunteered to watch this article and are active in maintaining quality and ensuring it is protected from spam, vandalism etc.' Richard001 22:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

tfd note

restoring tfd message. It would be a shame to see someone claim the vote invalidated over a technicality and have to re-vote over again. --Stbalbach 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree I don't think including the tfd notice will hurt anything. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

What might and might not work

Another editor just alerted me to this, so I haven't worked with this template in practice. Being so new, hardly anyone has. But I have a pretty clear feeling about where this template might potentially be useful versus where it definitely won't.

There are a lot of topics that are highly contended for one reason or another. For example, many political figures have articles that are subject to edit wars. Most certainly if I claim to be a maintainer on George W Bush or Fidel Castro, no one is really going to consult me rather than engaging in an edit war over the political perspective they are trying to push. In fact, I think the template is unlikely to be of much use in any topic with a really large readership, even if it is not particularly contentious.

Where the template seems more likely to have an effect is in relatively niche topics that are relatively non-contentious. Fortunately, that describes 95% of the 800k articles we currently have. If I offer myself as an expert/maintainer on Norms of reaction or Jean Laplanche or Richard Gregg, a user who is non-expert but interested in enhancing an article will quite likely seek my advice on what is meant by a current sentence, or whether I know details on some fact s/he'd like to include. Btw. I'm not necessarily claiming actual expertise on the mentioned topics, though I did happen to substantially work on or create those articles, just using hypotheticals.

I don't think vandals or POV-warriors will bother with consultation, but good-faith editors might. And if someone consults me and fails to find my claimed expertise of any value, she is still perfectly free to disregard my answers (or non-answers). It wouldn't be a claim that I own a page in some binding way, but it would let new editors know that as a matter of etiquette, starting a conversation might be nice. In a sense, watchlisting a given article already does this to an extent inasmuch as I might jump in when I see an edit. But an editor happening by doesn't have any way to know in advance who has watchlisted a given article. The template might allow pro-active, not merely reactive, negotiation of editing plans. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you for properly representing the template! (also, don't forget, it lets readers know that someone has been protecting the article from vandalisms or other counterproductive edits). — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-18 08:07
We might want tot make a note that this template shouldnt be used on articles arn't 'stable' this includes anything contraversial, pov, currently part of an edit war, subject to recentism, etc. Agnte 12:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Zoe

What can be done about User:Zoe and his edits - he just left this comment on Talk:Anglo-Saxon literature underneath the Maintained template:

Please note that the above attempt at article ownership should not imply that others may not make edits to the article without consultation with those who have staked out this article as their territory.

I've reverted it three times but we appear to be a revert war. Suggestions? He may be after you next. --Stbalbach 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that I"m a "he"?

I am merely trying to let other editors know that you don't have the say as to what they can and cannot edit, despite your attempt at cybersquatting with this inappropriate template. Removing other people's Talk page comments is entirely inappropriate, and to do it three times should get you blocked form editing, but I won't do it because I'm the one involved in the conflict. I have reported it on WP:ANI, however. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, come on, this is not attempt of article ownership! It's just a quick way to know who is watching the page. If this gets famous like stub templates do, we will be able to know witch articles have people paying attention to them, and witch ones don't. In the Seisenberg article for instanse, if that was a common practice, then we would know that no one was wacthing that, we could have placed another template like no_one_is_wacthing, and then someone would find the article and start watching it. That's what, in my head, Mantained is all about. algumacoisaqq 00:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the new disclaimer on the template should alleviate some of the concerns about article ownership. —Kirill Lokshin 00:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

71% of mainspace articles are not watched by anyone. Hit Random Article a few times, and you're very likely to find an article in need of watching. The John Seigenthaler Sr. article, for example, went for 9 months (from September 2004 to May 2005) with only the contents, "John Seigenthaler SR". — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 00:18

  • The new wording is negative and assumes "worst faith". Wikipedia doesnt need that kind of bad attitude. --Stbalbach 00:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you really want new editors to think they are not allowed to make edits to the article unless they have your approval? Hm. Maybe you do. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It's merely a statement of what was already implicit about this template. Hopefully it won't be necessary—I suspect most newcomers would happily edit even if the disclaimer wasn't there—but it's best to leave it in, if only to maintain some level of harmony among the more experienced Wikipedians. —Kirill Lokshin 00:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree that it is a restatement, but am fine with keeping it. Apparently not everyone is too adept at assuming good faith :) — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 00:51
        • Which is their problem. :P I really dislike the wording about ownership. I could see the objections if this was Template:Owned and the language at the top said "Absolutely never edit this article without consulting these people or you may be reverted without notice!", but it doesn't say that. —Locke Cole 01:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Ownership" wording

This is a section for discussing the wording of the template that includes a "ownership" warning. It is not a vote or poll (do not use "object" etc..)

Please discuss:

  • Wikipedia has a guideline that we assume assume good faith. This ownership warning casts a sinister shadow and un-spoken motives that, while they may exist in a very small minority, do not exist for the overwhelming majority. It discredits the template and, in "bad faith", associates our names with "ownership" issues. In addition the fear of this template scaring off new editors is arguably even more pronounced with the ownership warning, a concept most will not understand or click through to read in detail. There is no evidence that talk page templates are usually consulted by new users before editing a page. I for one didnt know talk pages existed until well into my 2 week of editing. And also, do most new editors follow directions? Anti-vandal templates usually result in just the opposite. In summary, while the concern that template may scare off new users is certainly hypothetical, it should not be over-estimated as being a real problem compared to the benefits of the template. --Stbalbach 02:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Another point to consider is whether such wording will be added independently (to the talk pages) by users who object to this template in principle. If it's going to be there anyways, we might as well have a standard text that we can agree upon. —Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The whole no-ownership disclaimer is definitely counter-productive. And having a redundant clause saying that not only is it now owned, but you don't need permission just makes it an ugly circumlocution. Maybe a very brief pointer to the article ownership page, but something like five words, tops. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I fully understand and agree with your belief that people are not assuming good faith when they say we are trying to claim ownership over the article. However, at least until this TFD is over, I'd like it to remain intact, and then we can discuss what to do with it. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 02:39
      • Agreed. --Stbalbach 02:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It seems like bad faith to me to have that wording in there. Nobody was claiming ownership, and how someone could possibly conclude "maintained" means "owned" (especially when the wording at the top suggests these people are here to help if you need it) is beyond me. The implication seems to be that someone using this template might be trying to "own" the article it's placed on. That's really something that should be handled on a case by case basis, IMO. —Locke Cole 02:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is a "certifiable expert"? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Presumably an expert that's one step from being committed ;-)
On a more serious note, I think that phrase should probably be removed. Placing the template on a truly contentious article is likely to generate too much ill will, even if the user is a genuine expert. —Kirill Lokshin 14:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

TfD

Admin visibility

I like the template. In fact, I just recommended that something like it be created at the village pump. I'd like to add a section to this template that says something like this:

"The following administrators can be contacted to help with vandalism:"

Also, is there a version of this for categories? -- Samuel Wantman 23:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Admins, admins, admins. I watch many articles closely, that I know are not closely watched by registered editors and are often edited by anons, and I revert vandalism myself. ANYONE CAN DEAL WITH VANDALISM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE AN ADMIN. Articles don't need admins, they just need dedicated watchers. Even anons can do it. pfctdayelise 13:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you know of an admin who's watching, they might be the logical choice to help with blocking a pesky vandal. Perhaps the notice might scare off a vandal. --Samuel Wantman 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
An admin doesn't need to be watching the article to block a pesky vandal, they just need to be watching WP:VIP, which is where you should report vandals. If it is really bad, you might come over to IRC channel #wikipedia, where someone is almost always available for true emergencies. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It worked

In case anyone is keeping score, I assume this comment was the result of an anon finding me via this template on Game theory the day it was featured on the main page. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 08:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Expert retirement, other management concerns

We should probably maintain a notion that if an account has made no contributions for an extended period of time (three months? six months?) that it is appropriate to remove them from the Expert list and assume that their expertise is no longer available (i.e. that they have quit Wikipedia). Also: admins should be hightlighted in some way, just in case non-admins want to avoid articles that admins seem to have a particular interest in. Rationale: admins are supposed to not block users that they are having content disputes with, but it has been known to happen. There should also be a notion of some limit for this kind of template. For instance, there is no point to, say, an M.D. or nurse claiming a long list of medical articles. Nobody that I can think of should be claiming, for instance, more than about 20 articles. -- 71.139.183.184 12:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the first, those people need to be accessible. I think it's warrented to remove such people if you come accross them. Re: admins. Users should not feel affraid of admins. If you want to discuss specific problems with admins please bring it up at WP:ANI. Re: limit. I don't see why someone can't be actively maintaining many different articles. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as an admin, I usually consider anyone I have had a content dispute with pretty much off limits for me to block, even when they are egregiously insulting other users. I am far more ready to block someone with whom I have never had substantive disagreements. - Jmabel | Talk 06:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)