維基百科:給頁面標記問題

"Tags" are often used to indicate problems. Some Wikipedia editors 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 everyone may be able to. Editors are sometimes obliged to justify inclusion of tags, such as in the case of Template:POV.

Constructive criticism given in a civil, respectful manner is a vital part in a collaborative project like Wikipedia, and it should be welcomed rather than discouraged. Wikipedia 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 expertise to fix those problems, but the fact that they report them probably means that an article needs improvement.

Constructive tagging

Adding tags for non-obvious problems—without discussion on the talk page which explains the problems—is derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or ambiguous tags, such as {{npov}} or {{dead end}}, you should explain yourself on the talk page or in an edit summary. It can help to refer to applicable content policies, such as 中立的觀點, 可供查證, 非原創研究, or 生者傳記, though 維基法匠 is discouraged.

By contrast, adding tags for obvious, major flaws is helpful. Aristotle once stated: "When people are friends, they have no need of justice, but when they are just, they need friendship in addition." It is often best to only point out the greatest flaw in an article, and along with this possibly mention something you like about the content.

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.

移除標記

Any editor without a conflict of interest who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. Except in very obvious cases (such as removing {{Uncategorized}} from an article that has been categorized), it is wise to place a note on the talk page explaining the removal and to identify your action in an appropriately detailed edit summary. It is often the case that even after the initial problem causing the tag is fixed, the tag is 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 made a bad judgment call, or accidentally linked to the wrong template.

Be wary of removing tags related to sourcing issues, particularly specific ones like {{Citation needed}}. Under the Verifiability policy (see WP:CHALLENGE), 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 #Over-tagging below.

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 of interest. If there is disagreement, then normal talk page discussion should proceed, per consensus-building.

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 disruptive and is derided as "drive-by tagging" when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. The allegation that "drive-by tagging" is not acceptable is not based on Wikipedia policies; 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. Where there is disagreement, both sides should attempt to discuss the situation.

標記出現爭議

有時條目是否應當掛上模板可能會產生爭議。個別編輯掛模板是在闡釋觀點或擾亂，或者他很偏執。亦有部分編者不解決頁面的實質問題就擅自摘掉標籤，通常該類型的編者有鑑於以下原因：

• 認為標籤很打臉，中傷其本人。
• 愛面子，認為標籤非常丟臉。
• 不想讓其他編者對所編輯的頁面有所關注。
• 只是單純不喜歡有標籤的存在。

實際上，如標記時出現爭議，請按解決程序，前往討論頁與其他編者冷靜討論，切忌發生編輯戰。

Some tags, such as {{POV}}, often merely indicate the existence of one editor's concern, without taking a stand whether the article complies with Wikipedia policies. It is important to remember that the POV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is a current discussion about whether the article complies with the neutral point of view 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 is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time.

過度標記

掛標籤只是請他人解決你無從下手的問題，該動作本身不會改善條目。過多模糊標籤無助於改善維基百科，只會徒增混亂、打擊編者。無可否認，濫掛標籤是存有擾亂或破壞之嫌。這是一個過度標籤的實例。

下文是常見的過度標記問題：

過多標籤

掛一兩個標籤指出最大問題即可，條目再差也不應超過三個標籤，再掛多只會被集體無視。

例子：某條目疑似直接複製自外站。這種條目一般有這類問題：侵犯著作權嫌疑、無來源、格式雜亂、無鏈接、無分類。此時只需標記最大的問題，即疑似侵犯著作權，像沒有鏈接等小節，應待大問題解決後標記。

冗餘標籤

若A標籤包括B標籤的問題，條目已掛A時就不應再掛B。掛{{無來源}}後無需再掛{{無腳註}}，斷言也不應同時標記{{來源請求}}和{{可疑}}。冗餘模板會分散讀者注意力，還算為闡釋觀點而擾亂維基百科。

模糊標籤

老編輯尚都困擾於泛用標籤，新編輯就更是無從下手。掛標籤應先選專用標籤，只能掛泛用標籤時，則在討論頁留言解釋，或在標籤後加<!-- 隐藏注释 -->詳述問題。

不少標籤都可用於混亂、文筆拙劣的條目，但編輯應貼具體的標籤。很多東西都應該{{清理}}，但具體是{{要分段}}、內容{{自相矛盾}}、語調如{{評論}}，還是{{贅言}}呢？編輯應在Category:清理模板中選擇最精確的標籤。

錯誤標籤

不要貼和問題不對號的標籤，沒合適標籤時，要麼親自動手修改，要麼在討論頁指出問題。

例子：某條目有27條內文引用，都出自同一來源，你想指出這一問題。{{無來源}}不適用於該條目，因為條目並非「有0條來源」！雖然掛{{改善來源}}說的過去，但{{單一來源}}才是最佳答案。現有A、B兩個標籤，A標籤和問題有交集，B標籤和問題完全對應，請掛那個完全對應的B，不要兩個全掛。

無用標籤

請不要只因理論上可以就掛模板，就算條目有擴充改善餘地，也不一定要掛標籤。請用你的智慧判斷所有事實和狀況，掛標籤真能推動條目改善，不能就別掛。

例子：某公司條目險過關注度標準，它沒有或只有一篇條目鏈入。條目{{孤立}}的確是事實，但在掛模板就有用嗎，它有辦法不孤立麼？掛模板是請人解決問題，但請人解決無解問題很不合適。

參見

• 維基百科:模板消息
• 維基百科:模板消息/清理
• Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
• Wikipedia:Clarify the cleanup
• Wikipedia:WikiImp, a type of editor frequently engaged in drive-by tagging