Forum:CT:Removal of useless tags

There has been talk of useless tags recently, so I decided to take up the task of identifying and placing those very tags up for deletion. There have been long held opinions that the tags on this wikia are too excessive and/or not backed by any sort of policy, not to mention the fact that some are subjective as heck.

One such tag, the Marysue is the poster child of such a tag. This tag is not backed by one iota of policy, it is subjective in nature and it is an extraneous tag at best. It does nothing but say "I hate your article!" We don't need that, what we need are constructive tags that help to foster a better article. If you wanted, you could still put this very information in the fanonify tag and include instructions on how to improve the article. Triple threat in the useless department.

Next up is the Redlink tag. Although it messes with feng shui and it is aesthetically unpleasing, a certain user has very publicly and staunchly taken the position that redlinks are not a problem. They are harmless and in most cases temporary. I find it hard to disagree with those points, especially the latter. Furthermore, this tag does fall into the same pitfalls as its brethren Marysue, therefore, this must be deleted as well.

The third tag on the chopping block is the fact tag. This tag is useful for more official sites like Wookieepedia, LOSTpedia, etc. since those need to be factually accurate. SWF, since it is a fanon site, does not follow this mandate. We do not present real-world factual information and all information in an article must be assumed as true unless stated otherwise by the author. Also, our policies say sourcing is optional, therefore this goes contrary to policy and has no purpose here.

The final tag on the cutting room table is the Intro tag. More often than not, introduction information can be gleaned off the content already put in the page. Unless the page is blank, which would fail policy and be subject to deletion, there will always be information a fellow user could put as an intro, if one is lacking. It is also redundant for pages that contain infoboxes, since that we have the Onlyinfobox tag. This is extraneous and useless since a fellow user is allowed to add an intro as long as it only adds available information.

Tell me what you think. Separate polls will be taken for each tag and more tags can be placed at request. However, all subsequent tag deletion requests will still be subject to the initial seven day deadline. - I'm the Chosen One You must see it... 04:29, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Voting will end at 11:59 Eastern Standard Time on July 18th, 2011.

Remove

 * 1)  I'm the Chosen One You must see it... 04:29, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) There's nothing in policy that forbids Mary Sues, so it's a personal preference tag. You could tag one of my articles with that and I could remove it, and there's nothing you could do to stop me. Not to mention the fact that people rarely use it correctly (i.e. you're supposed to leave comments and advice on the article's talk page). - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird.svg (talk) 04:56, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Brandon. LordDeathRay (Talk) 05:06, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Brandon. It's just way to subjective. -- D.W. (talk)(Glorior) 05:17, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) I'd be in favor of actually having this tag link to Your Mary Sue to show how horrible they can be. 04:44, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm hard pressed to remove a measure that discourages Mary Sues on this wiki. Give me some examples where this thing has been improperly used (in my sole estimation) and I'll support removing it. Until then, it serves a useful purpose. Atarumaster88  Jedi_Order.svg ( Talk page ) 04:52, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Because people need to know when they've written an awful* article.-- Josh Bender щ(ﾟДﾟщ) 05:19, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  TK999 —[Discuss] 13:13, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Ataru.  Seb  olto  14:58, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
I can be persuaded either way on this. First, I personally find Mary Sue articles annoying and impossible to read. On the other hand, if no policy forbits it, and considering we do have the freedom to make our characters however we want, I guess it is an unessessary template. Ty294 (Talk)  15:35, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Remove

 * 1)  I'm the Chosen One You must see it... 04:29, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) On a fanon wiki it is kinda pointless. 04:44, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) While they can be an eyesore, there's nothing wrong with redlinks. All it means is that something is incomplete at present. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird.svg (talk) 04:56, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Brandon. LordDeathRay (Talk) 05:06, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) -- D.W. (talk)(Glorior) 05:17, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) We're not documenting anything official, so this can go.  JM  76  Droid IRC [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|16px]] 05:23, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) The only time redlinks actually matter are with FANs and GANs, and it's a lot easier to mention it on the CS page, or fix it for them. The template is rather pointless.-- SavageOpress1138  Help you I can, yes  12:44, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Agreed with Brandon. Redlinks don't hurt anyone, and there is no policy against them. AK2.png Ty294 AK1.png (Talk) 15:25, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) I like having a means for discouraging senseless redlinks. 1) Redlinks are ugly as sin. 2) There's no expectation that anyone but the user is going to fix them outside of a collaborative effort. 3) I'd prefer if users either just stub'd their redlinks or made a list somewhere instead of having the ugliness splashed all over the article. Then again, no one's likely to read it except them anyway so meh. No real policy basis for this one, I just dislike redlinks. Atarumaster88  Jedi_Order.svg ( Talk page ) 04:50, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  TK999 —[Discuss] 13:13, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Remove

 * 1)  I'm the Chosen One You must see it... 04:29, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) At least we get to keep [citation needed], right? 04:44, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I can see no reason to keep this one. There's fewer facts on this wiki's mainspace than common sense in politicians' brains. Atarumaster88  Jedi_Order.svg ( Talk page ) 04:46, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Obvious reasons are obvious. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird.svg (talk) 04:57, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't really see why a fanon wiki needs sources. And sources from what? The only sources I could think of for fanon is the author. LordDeathRay (Talk) 05:06, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Has no use here. -- D.W. (talk)(Glorior) 05:19, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Per above.  JM  76  Droid IRC [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|16px]] 05:23, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) This is quite possibly the most useless template here on SWF. Something else should get a chance at most useless.  -- SavageOpress1138  Help you I can, yes  12:48, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9)  TK999 —[Discuss] 13:13, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) He he he, Per Ataru. AK2.png Ty294 AK1.png (Talk) 15:27, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Remove

 * 1)  I'm the Chosen One You must see it... 04:29, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) I actually have had to use this at least once or twice. 04:44, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Since when is it the job of other users to fill out an intro for negligent/new/ignorant users? Given a choice between reading someone's intro-less article and adding an intro or tagging it, I'd rather they do it and keep a consistent writing style. This one has a policy basis, I see no reason to remove it. Atarumaster88  Jedi_Order.svg ( Talk page ) 04:45, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I typically will add a sentence myself, but there's an actual policy basis for this one. I myself would like to just have one multi-purpose clean up template rather than multiple templates that clutter the top of an article, but that's a whole different discussion entirely. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird.svg (talk) 04:58, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) This one is somewhat needed. LordDeathRay (Talk) 05:06, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Goodwood and Brandon. -- D.W. (talk)(Glorior) 05:20, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) *laziness card*  JM  76  Droid IRC [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg|16px]] 05:23, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) As it has been stated, this template serves a porpoise.-- SavageOpress1138  Help you I can, yes 12:54, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8)  TK999 —[Discuss] 13:13, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
So you are going against this because you are too lazy to add a sentence, but not lazy enough to ignore the article altogether? It takes just as much work to fill out the tag as it does to write a five word sentence.- I'm the Chosen One You must see it... 04:56, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey now, take it easy there bud. There's no need to pull the laziness card. 05:07, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
General discussion and area to propose more tags for deletion.- I'm the Chosen One You must see it... 04:29, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Marysue tag, insofar as it not being backed up by policy, the NPOV tag and Neutral Point of View is typically not enforced except when an article bearing POV issues is put up for Good or Featured status (i.e., most folks tend to just tag-and-bag, not actually touching the offending content). Fanonify can be used in a pinch, sure, but in my experience it is more useful in shedding light on more glaring and immediate issues, such as lack of past tense, poor formatting, story content not being on a subpage, or similar reasons. Marysue, instead of simply throwing it out, could be tweaked so that it leads to the FA tutorial, Your Mary Sue, both, or some other help page that gives the person whose article has been so tagged a place to go where they can learn to not write Mary Sues. And frankly, if someone thinks that that tag insults their work, then they need to get off the intertubez and grow a thicker skin. 04:55, July 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * All of the other tags you mentioned have a basis in policy. We don't forbid Mary Sues, so we shouldn't be sticking a big template on the top of someone's articles just because we have a difference of opinion as to whether their work is good or not. If you do want to point out that the article is a Mary Sue, you can do so far more effectively on the article's talk page. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird.svg (talk) 05:00, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true, and I didn't try to hide that fact. However, I honestly do feel that the template isn't totally useless and can be made to be more useful&mdash;such as requiring folks who apply it to actually leave useful info on the talk page, otherwise it could be a violation of the civility policy (this is just an example). But that's a matter for another CT; for now, it's a straight up/down keep/kill vote. 05:06, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * My hang up there is that if you were to tag my article with that template, even if it was clearly a Mary Sue, I could remove it and you couldn't tell me otherwise. I wouldn't be required to listen to what you have to say, because we don't forbid Mary Sues. Improvement templates should be reserved for policy issues, and it's just easier to leave your feedback on the talk page. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird.svg (talk) 05:08, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless the guy wanted to edit-war with you, which violates 3RR. . While that may be the case that it's not backed up by policies (oh by the Force how I wish there was an anti-Sue measure on the books...), at least the tag catches the author's eye. And like I said earlier, filling it with links to useful pages would increase the likelihood of an author becoming interested in remedying the Sue-ness. 05:12, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * So would a talk page message. A template just creates the false impression that they've broken a rule. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird.svg (talk) 05:14, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * But they have broken a rule. The rule of good taste.  05:16, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * A template on the page is easier noticed than a message on the article's talk page. Since the removal of watched pages, you aren't notified when a change occurs. And since the talk page is a small link on the article itself, messages may go ignored.-- Josh Bender щ(ﾟДﾟщ) 05:17, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * If they want to ignore it, that's entirely up to them. If they want to check the talk page, it's entirely up to them. The key point in this is that they don't have to make this change. - Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird.svg (talk) 05:19, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure this is an option, but there is also that wikia labs feature that allows article page comments at the bottom of the page. I am not sure I like that option for several reasons though.- I'm the Chosen One You must see it... 05:36, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * That remove talk page links from articles, making them inaccessible unless you know to manually search for them. It works for some wikis, particularly newer ones that don't have thousands of talk pages, but it wouldn't work here. - <font color="#1A2BBB">Brandon Rhea Alliance Starbird.svg <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) 05:55, July 11, 2011 (UTC)