Wikipedia talk:Tagging pages for problems

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Welcome

This essay was inspired by a talk-page comment by User:Beland at Talk:Competition law. I look forward to your comments and improvements. THF 02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. I once answered a help desk question about how many users need to dispute neutrality in an article to put up a POV tag, and I answered: one, as long as it's in good faith. 71.174.240.210 02:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradicts NPOVD

This personal essay contradicts WP:NPOVD and is an invitation for and a justification of drive-by tagging that attempts to excuse the tagger from participating constructively in page editing. Tag graffiti is a significant problem in Wikipedia. Better to follow the clear policies of NPOVD. Tagging articles is a POV issue. Tagging them and stating "This article is clearly POV" on the talk page is not sufficient, according to NPOVD which requires the productive discussion of specifics. Specifics, not as in, "I specifically said it was POV but I don't have the time to fix it" but more in line of "This sentence: 'blah' is an unsourced statement that is pushing a POV." ∴ Therefore talk 03:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The language in this article comes from WP:NPOVD. Simply driving by and saying it contradicts it is unproductive. Where is the contradiction? THF 03:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unhelpful: needs a link to the tag list

This article contains some good advice. But I came here looking for a list of tags, so that I could choose the right one. I didn't find it. In fact, there is a link at the bottom that _looks_ like it's a link to the list I want, but returns tags that the software may add, not tags that I'm supposed to consider adding.

Unfortunately, instead of tagging the article I was going to tag, I need to leave and have breakfast. Thus I fear that this article is "noise" that clouds the "signal" of what helpful editors are really looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krobin (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krobin you are totally right - this is REAL problem.

Editors absolutely NEED a definitive, up-to-date list of tags. I'm a pretty experienced computer user - I can find my way around most things given time, Why can't I find a proper tag list - I've googled... It should be on every edit page. There is something at Special:Tags and I only know this isn't it cos I notice there is (E.G.) no { { fact } } tag in the list

A good start, but needs a lot of work

This is a good start, but needs a good pass of copyediting and clarification. Also, an essay needs to read as one, and not read as a guideline or quasi-policy. There are many good examples of well written essays, you may want to check these and get some ideas on how to improve this one. Until such time, I would avoid linking to it from policy or guidelines pages, which I have removed.

Some essays that I quite like: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Wikipedia:The_role_of_policies_in_collaborative_anarchy.

Hope this helps. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to get this upgraded to policy. How does one go about doing that? Is there any role for a casual editor on Wikipedia, or does one need to be a full-time person? THF 03:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend going to the talk page for WP:NPOVD, the policy page for the use of the neutrality tag and discuss changes. All policy is open to change by all users, including the casual editors. You have the right spirit, just the wrong mechanism. ∴ Therefore talk 03:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.... I do not think there is much of a chance for that, Ted. There are other guidelines and policies in place that deal with these issues already. (See the comment above mine). FYI, there is no formal process for defining new policies. You can start by engaging editors in related guidelines such as WP:NPOVD, and polices such as WP:NPOV and see if there is a need for such addition. As I said, I do not think is needed. Another way, would be to write a brilliant essay, and see if many editors start using it, at which point you may consider adding a {{proposed}} to the essay and take it from there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there are really no "full-time" editors, Ted. We are all volunteers, like you. Some invest more time than others, but that is not an issue as it pertains to policy shaping. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New official policies are very rarely endorsed, but I do recognize some relatively new faces at Wikipedia:List of policies. WP:WHEEL, for example became endorsed after being cited in some arbcom decisions, but this was a proposed policy that was acknowledged almost universally. I can't recall any disputed policies becoming official without intervention by Jimbo.

I think Jossi is right about the similarities hurting the already-slim chances of this being made into policy; we tend to consolidate policies, such as how Wikipedia:Undeletion policy was folded into deletion. WP:ATT was a failed attempt to merge V ans OR.

For what it's worth, I think a well-reasoned essay will help some editors better understand taggers. When an editor marks up your article with ugly tags, it's very tempting to dismiss them as a non-contributing member of Wikipedia's "wonk and twiddler" brigade, but we shouldn't look at it this way. Cool Hand Luke 06:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to merge this into an existing policy. WP:NPOVD is too hostile to the idea of tagging, and fails to recognize that the problem with Wikipedia are the number of false negatives where articles are untagged when they should be tagged. An editor shouldn't have to babysit a page with an NPOV dispute to ensure edit-warriors don't remove the tag. THF 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging without discussion on talk page is, in my opinion, not only useless, but harmful. It does not contribute to improve the article, it rises the emotional charge involved and, since does not point out specific problems, cast shadow of suspicion even over the informations in the article/section that are not disputed. Unfortunately, many WP articles are polluted with such tags, rendering them almost useless to whom is trying to form an unbiased opinion. I think we need specific WP policy (not a personal essay) on it, stating that a justification for tagging on talk page, pointing out specific issue is mandatory. The current WP|Tagging essay is a good baseline. M.Campos (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

drive-by tagging

I do acknowledge tagging is fundamental in development of high-quality articles and certainly helps display the problems explicitly to uninvolved readers. However, I do believe that we need a more clearer policy on tagging and agree with the above user on this. It is really unhelpful if the tagger doesnt spend time explain the rationale and instead insist on tagging even if the author or authors of the article are willing to work with him or her. The distinction between un-oppsed drive-by tagging and cases where authors willing to work with the tagger needs to be made. Docku:“what up?” 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the expression "drive-by tagging" is problematic, as it appears to invoke a comparison to drive-by shooting. Secondly, there is no requirement in Wikipedia policies that an editor 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.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 12:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging contradicts WP:V

The practice of tagging in the article space should be proscribed on a basis of WP:V (see threshold for inclusion). Tagging constitutes meta-commentary about the current state of the article and therefore comprises talk content, not article content. Problems related to an article should be discussed on an article's talk page, not made to blight an article. Further, tagging should not be considered an acceptable substitute to editing the article or discussing article problems. Robert K S (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging templates

User:UBX/Overtagging (UTC)

Also:

Ikip (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such assumptions of bad faith are unlikely to lead to cooperative editing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks once again for your good faith and constructive comments.

I note that the community decided to keep (11-4) User:UBX/Overtagging, when you nominated it for deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/HatesUselessTaggers using much of the same language you use here:

"Antagonistic and in breach of WP:AGF. Accusing other editors, even unspecified ones, of vandalism isn't something we should be encouraging with userboxen".

Ikip (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still strongly of the opinion that said template is needlessly antagonistic and assumes bad faith. As one of Wikipedia's most prolific taggers I am accused of this constantly despite also being one of Wikipedia's most profilic copyeditors and doing more than most to fix the issues in these tags. I cannot recall a time when being attacked for being a "useless tagger" has led to an article being fixed faster, or better relationships between editors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all prolific taggers do as much as you do to actually fix articles. While the tag shown above is antagonistic in tone, it does vent a very deep-seated frustration among several people. たろ人 (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is best if editors find ways of venting their frustration which do not antagonise others. As I said, I've never seen an example of this kind of venting leading to cooperative editing: at its worst it encourages the formation of cliques devoted to hatred of a common enemy, examples of which are sadly commonplace on WP these days. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for future work

I just ran across this essay and find the information important and deserving of community support. I sometimes place a tag on an article I run across in the course of other work. I do not troll to place tags and in fact have taken the position that unaddressed tags or long term tags should be removed. If there are issues and nothing is done then nothing can be fixed. I feel tags are necessary but should be accompanied by comments as to what led an editor to place the tag when the template is not clear. It certainly would be unreasonable to expect an editor to place a talk page comment on reasons for a tag that there are no references on an article. It is hard to even imagine stopping in the middle of work or research to address a problem that has come to light. Placing a tag not only calls attention to a problem it places the article on my watch list and I go over this from time to time. This means to me that tags do have an importance but there is also a need for an essay or guideline, especially important for newer users, to explain a community consensus on use. Otr500 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion to guideline

What would it take to get this essay (or some variation of it) turned into a guideline? (See WP:VPP proposal here.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Requesting a second opinion about whether Guthy-Renker warrants a tag (see discussion here). I brought the page up to GA while following COI best practices. In support of the tag, an editor says it's promotional to identify the article-subject by name in the article too frequently - I disagree. etc. Would appreciate someone taking a look. CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why no list of tags?

I know I am not the only Wikipedian who finds it incomprehensible and maddening that there doesn't seem to be a complete list of Wikipedia tags. If there is, where is it, and why doesn't this help page link to it? If there isn't, why doesn't someone create one? (Don't tell me to do it, I don't know nearly enough about them.) I bet that if someone created such a list, it would immediately become one of the most frequently consulted Wikipedia help pages. Littlewindow (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Five years since this comment was made and apparently nothing has been done about it (either that or I'm EXTREMELY dumb because no amount of searching has born any fruit). I would also really love a list of tags so I can go through articles and mark things that I or someone else can come back to later. User:CaptainColon^{Yell At Me!} 00:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New related discussion at Village Pump

Related discussion on promoting the essay WP:TAGGING to Guideline status.

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Promote_WP:Tagging_pages_for_problems_to_guideline

009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 15:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've backed out a couple of edits to restore the content to reflect the version submitted for the RfC. The COI editor issue can be taken up after the RfC has closed. Page protection was declined. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 20:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ask you to stop editing this document directly. If I need an RfC to get you to stop doing that, I will do. If it is not obvious why I am asking you to not editing this document directly, please ask. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't get the hint, I am asking you not to edit this essay while it is in policy discussions. Changing the content while it is being voted on is unacceptable. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 01:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made one change here at 20:13, 20 May 2016 and a second change here saying the same thing at 00:25, 21 May 2016. There was only one plus !vote before then, and I have notified that person; the changes would not have affected the oppose !vote but I have notified them anyway. I have no intention of making further changes. You work as a paid editor and it looks very bad for you to be arguing against a change that affects your paid editing. Just knock it off. Jytdog (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no simple info on where to insert tags?

Given that I presume WP wants to be user-friendly, why is it so absurdly difficult to find basic instructions on how and where to insert a tag?! I've been editing on WP for a decade now, and I'm not exactly stupid, but every time I need to tag an article for WP:PROD or the like (which, to be fair, has only been 15-20 times), I have to go through a long process of searching for the specific instructions on how to do so. There seem to be dozens of pages about tags -- the variety of them, when they should be used, and so on -- but how about where to insert the tag(s), relative to the code on the page? At the top of every page, after one has clicked on "edit", there is the existing text and markup, which may include an infobox, redirect tags, "other uses", etc. Where is one supposed to insert the new tag? -above everything else? -below any existing tags but above any infobox? Really -- some simple instructions would be appreciated. And if that info already exists on some WP help page, damned if I can easily find it. Bricology (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you manually do a PROD? don't you use TWINKLE? It can automatically do all those for you.

Where to place it, I know there's WP:ORDER.

Hope I've helped. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugog Nizdast, good point with the Twinkle recommendation. Do you know if something like that exists for Wikipedia tagging at large? I'd really love to have a simplistic point and click list of stuff like: {{how}} and {{Elucidate}}. I've looked through preferences myself a few times, and although they have things to say, make reviewing logs look nicer, or things like MoreMenu, which are great for when you're reading an article, but it seems like the editing tools available during editing process are weirdly limited. I've been struggling to get a handle on WikiEd, and while it's clearly a great tool, I think it swings a bit too far in the other direction of adding too many options to the toolbar, most of which go completely unused due to the niche or technical nature of them.

Heck, just looking up the tag to figure out how to correctly format this reply (while having a about 15 links from the main article open) took way, way too long, at almost 20 minutes. I don't know if I have enough technical expertise to create a plugin or gadget to implement what would essentially amount to a simplified, but very long list of what is already shown under the "Wiki Markup Insert" section. I'm strongly considering working on this, purely based on the amount of annoyance this has caused myself, and likely countless other Wikipedians. At the very least, an article with a comprehensive list of Wikipedia Tags with associated example would be excellent.

I'll reply to this thread with a link to either, if I end up pursing either route. I'm really surprised that this isn't a thing directly integrated into Wikipedia itself. I can't help but feel like I'm using the entire site wrong, due to the nature of how long completing relatively simple tasks end up taking on here. Sawta (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what your problem is. Is it just tagging or wikimarkup in general? If there's a list, point to each specific instances so that I can recommend something. I don't know what do you mean by "tag to figure out how to correctly format this", there isn't any to my knowledge for simply posting replies. Or are you just looking for a gadget which shows a list of markup and template options during editing which can be inserted on click rather than the usual copy-paste or manual typing? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugog Nizdast, it's difficult to explain as I am still struggling to get used to the format and terminology of Wikipedia. The best way I can put it is: I'm looking for something like Template messages/Cleanup or Category:Cleanup templates, but for every, or at least most of, the commonly used tags in Wikipedia that use {{ and }}, on a single Wiki page. Both of the previously mentioned links have a ton of tags, but I don't think they list everything, and they are in two different locations, requiring different bookmarks and cross-checks to see if I'm using the best possible thing for the specific occurrence. I wouldn't mind creating this page myself, but I assume there are similar pages that already meet this need, or that I'm using/thinking about the site the wrong way - I recall that there's a tag specifically for articles that sound like "how-to's", so I assume that the concept I'm thinking of would not meet Wikipedia's standards.

When I wrote "tag to figure out how to correctly format this", I meant that when linking to articles in this manner: MoreMenu, or figuring out the correct way to reply/"ping" fellow Wikipedians like this: Bricology, so they would be notified when their name is mentioned, took a tremendous amount of time to format correctly. Broken links, [[]] instead of {{}}, not including the closing / for a "nowiki" clause, etc.

Example: I am reading an article that needs citation, I have to:

Look up how to annotate that a citation is needed (what is the name of the thing when someone adds a citation needed...thing? Oh! It's called a tag.)
Google "Wikipedia citation needed tag", find out it's {{CN}} after reading the documentation
Go back to the article and click edit, ctrl+f for the area I was reading as most of the page is painful to read in edit mode
Ensure that I am using {{CN}} in the commonly accepted manner (after or before the word? at the end of the sentence? at the end of the paragraph? in a specific area?), add {{CN}}
Add information to the summary area that mentions this change, save
Go to the talk page and figure out how to create a new section, == CN tag added to example area ==
Explain why I felt the CN tag was necessary
Sign my message. I often forget this one.
Mention in the talk summary that a new section has been added
Add the page to my watch list

This is fairly involved process, but certainly not impossible, just annoying. What makes it really difficult is when I know that something in a sentence is wrong, but I can not determine what the proper set of {{}} would be to best address it. I then have to go back to Google and try and describe the nature of what I want and hope I'm being descriptive enough:

"Wikipedia clarification needed"
Go to Template:Definition_needed
Determine if I want: Definition needed, Definition, Clarify, Ambiguous, How, Elucidate, Specify, or Vague by re-reading each template documentation
Re-read the articles on Etiquette on Wikipedia and tag bombing, to ensure I'm not going against policy
Repeat the previous referenced 10 stage process

What would be great is if there was a gadget that would:

(Click edit, ctrl+f to find the offending phrase and highlight)

Click a button for something like "Magic Wiki Tag Button"
Choose the category I want, in this example, "Cleanup tags" and scroll down through the tags listed (Clarify, Confusing, Definition, Definition needed, How, etc.). Each choice would have hover text of a brief definition or example, as well as a clickable link to each documentation page so I wouldn't need to actively search them out through Google with broad terms like "wiki tag define" or "Wikipedia unclear tag"
After choosing the relevant tag, summary is populated with a reference to the tag I've chosen
After hitting save, automatically redirected to the talk page - in edit mode - with a new section opened, populated with the tag you selected and a reference to that tag/new section in the summary.

I know the automatic population stuff in the summary section is probably asking a lot technically speaking, but I would really think that one of those gadgets would have some kind of functionality to give the user a list of all of Wikipedia's tags. That is, it's nice to be able to click {{}} or the "No Wiki formatting" button, or the "signature and timestamp" button, but it would be even better if I could click something similar to {{}} and get a dropdown list for all wiki tags. That not withstanding, a page listing every tag could work, if there was a link to it.

Better yet would be if you were to choose the dropdown field and have an entire character subset devoted to wiki tags, similar to the way that Wiki markup, Latin, Greek, etc. get their own character subsets. I really need a cheatsheet for Wiki tags. Does anything like that exist either through a Wiki article, or a gadget, or some 3rd party plugin? Sawta (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugog Nizdast, After re-reading your reply, "Or are you just looking for a gadget which shows a list of markup and template options during editing which can be inserted on click rather than the usual copy-paste or manual typing?", yes, this is in the right vein of what it is I am looking for. Something where I would be able to get a list of applicable cleanup tags while editing an article. The problem for me isn't necessarily the typing aspect, or even the formatting - although that is a pain too. For me the biggest issue is that I do not know the comprehensive list of tags that are out there, and there doesn't appear to be a single, dedicated source. Whether that source be through a clickable gadget button, or Wikipage, I would be happy with either, it just doesn't appear to exist, as far as I can tell. Sawta (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TMC is the main repository for all the possible tags as far as I know, there isn't (and shouldn't be) another to confuse people more. Like all pages here, if there's something missing, anyone can add it to it.

While I commend you for being thorough, looking at your ten-step process just for tagging something, what you do can definitely be relaxed. There's a lot of inline tags but I really can't see the use of them in practice. Some of the tags are so specific and silly that I can't imagine why the tagger can fix such a problem in the same amount of time instead of searching for that specific tag. The more minor and specific a problem is, a tag for it for that situation seems more sillier. Take the instance of "Definition needed, Definition, Clarify, Ambiguous, How, Elucidate, Specify, or Vague", nearly all of them mean almost the same thing. Tagging is done with the sole purpose of alerting someone who can fix the problem when you can't; no one is going to check whether you tagged "correctly". Personally, I just know three inline tags, {{cn}}, {{who}} and {{clarify}}--these apply to nearly all situations. You can always use just the talk page, the standard way of raising article issues; tagging is never something you ought to do--though you seem to do both. I personally don't think you should raise a citation needed issue (or any straightforward tag) on the talk, it's obvious what the problem is and it is assumed that you've failed the initial procedure of finding one and doubt its verifiability.

That's what I think, maybe that's why no one finds this such a big deal. What you've proposed isn't a bad idea, but really not urgent. Regarding better ways of doing some what you've mentioned above, there's Visual Editor. It has an easy way of inserting templates, even the basic search mode for it with it attempting to fetch the template description (depending if there's template data). For example, try adding "cn" using it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you update the date?

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Can you update the date? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of potential interest

An RfC is underway that interested "watchers of this page" wound enhance by participating, I hope that many will! The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding "Ambox generated" maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HOW do you tag a page?

This essay contains lots of info about when to tag a page, but not how to do it.

I'm trying to do something fairly straightforward. I've found a very confusing Wikipedia page on Ata-Malik Juvayni. It contains no footnotes, but has five 'references' at the bottom numbered 1-5 as though there were footnotes in the text using those numbers.

In addition, these references seem to have nothing at all to do with the article. It is about a Persian historian, and they are about a Chinese general.

I know NOTHING about the topic myself, so can't even begin to fix it. I want to tag the page so that other editors are alerted to the problem. But the Wikipedia help pages direct me here, and this essay is not in any way helpful for the editor who simply wants to know HOW to do this as opposed to why and when it might be advisable to do so.

I would appreciate it if someone could help with this please. Liamcalling (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Liamcalling: The page isn't intended as a "how-to" guide. It includes links to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup in three different places, and Wikipedia:Template messages once. Try those. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that it's not intended as that, Redrose64, but that's the problem. When you go to the 'Help' pages to try to find "how-to" information you are directed here. And in fact I had followed many of the shortcuts on the page and stiil found myself being redirected back here because they are not clear either.

It's not just a problem with this page, really. In general, Wikipedia seems to be becoming less user-friendly; more and more designed for a (comparatively) small community of experienced editors who are familiar with the terminology and don't even notice the fact that some things might be near incomprehensible to the casual reader who wants to make a small improvement without spending a whole day on it. It wasn't always like this.

I might have another go later, or might just not bother. Thanks for your help. Liamcalling (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liamcalling, and anyone else who might be stuck in the same rut as I was just now, I think I've figured it out. When editing an article, at least with the visual editor (the source editor is beyond me), there's an insert button on the toolbar. You can insert templates from there, including tag templates. I just added a copy edit template to an article from there. Hopefully this helps. Sincerely, VDizzleFoShizzle (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too many tags?

Yesterday I stumbled upon an article that was loaded with ideological sounding language, presented as objective fact. It was vague and weaselly, and almost none of it was sourced. This is the article in question: History of capitalism. I wrought the most havoc in the "Varieties of Capitalism" section. I enthusiastically tagged every vaguery, weasel wording and lack of sources I could find, and did some constructive edits to the text itself too, however on this article I read that I'm not supposed to do that, that you should never use more than 2 or 3 tags on a single article. My question is then, what else am I supposed to do when people write articles like that? Should I just delete the text I don't like? I can't use the "this section uses no citations" (or whatever) thing, because sometimes they do use 1 source in that section, and I frankly don't have the time to edit long texts about topics I'm not that invested in myself, plus I'm not a very good writer or a very motivated one, yet sometimes I do see content that's bad and I wanna do something about it. Should I just turn the disputed text into a comment in the source code so it's out of sight but not gone? Dapperedavid (talk) 13:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is a tag exactly?

I assume tag means cleanup tags and maintenance tags. Are CSD/PROD/XFD tags included? I think ideally we would explain exactly what tags we mean in the lead, and/or wikilink the word "tag" to something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for poor English

I came to this page hoping to find what tag to use to suggest a page/section needs to be cleaned up for better grammar/English. Perhaps this page itself could be improved to help people find the tags they need to use. Rebroad (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rebroad, maybe use {{copy edit}} for the article, {{copy edit section}} for the section, and {{copy edit inline}} for inline. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]