Template talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles

Instructions on usage

Should there be some usage instructions on this? For example should it go on the main space or talk page, should care be taken about point of view issues, etc. JASpencer 16:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions:

- Only use on stub pages
- Only place on a Talk Page
- Include a link to the article(s) in either the main page or the Talk pages

JASpencer 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK here is what I'm going to put on the main page unless anyone has objections:

- - Only put this template on a stub article. If the article is no longer a stub then remove the template.
  - Put this stub on the Talk page and not the main page.
  - Include a link within the article or the Talk page to the online Encyclopedia article or articles that you wish to be used.

JASpencer 21:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Sources

Changed the instructions to read "Do not link to external sources". Linking to external sources is paramount to spam and is too similar to the many previous templates that have recently been deleted that also try to push a single external source. -- Stbalbach 14:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put both points in. It's rather pointless not to have a link, somewhere. JASpencer 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the people who created this template didn't think it was "pointless". You seem to be the first one to think so. It would be a violation of WP:SPAM to include direct links to external sites using a template like this. Lets keep this template sensible. If you want to link to an external site, do so in the article's External links section. -- Stbalbach 13:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Stbalbach. --Folantin 20:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Include a link in the article's External links section to the online Encyclopedia article or articles that you wish to be used" which takes in your point. JASpencer 09:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple sources listed at Missing Encyclopedia Articles, this template was designed to point the reader to the MEA project page which lists all sources - there is no reason to tell people what to use as a source or external site, which is problematic per WP:SPAM -- also, the main goal of MEA is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available - it's main goal is not to expand articles, but to make sure articles exist. If you have a list of red-link article names, and you want to make them blue, just create a stub, add an external link to your favorite source, then add this template to the talk page. There is no reason to tell people that they are supposed to use the listed external link as a source. That is your opinion and very likely not one shared by other people. It is not the purpose of MEA to push opinions about which source should be used in expanding an article. -- Stbalbach 15:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about for now: "Think about including a link in the article's External links section to the online Encyclopedia article or articles that you wish to be used."? JASpencer 17:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same thing, a solicitation to use a source, I don't see how that is any different. Just don't solicit people to use a source. -- Stbalbach 13:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following that line of reasonong isn't this template source solicitation? Perhaps the best thing to do is to tighten up the (very new) section within WP:SPAM. JASpencer 15:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template does not link to a source, or solicit people to use a specific source. -- Stbalbach 15:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine about not linking to a source. I think that it's wrong, but now is not the time to cause trouble.

On using a specific source where do either of the two formulations say that you should use a specific source? They were meant to be non-directional. If either of these formulations are solicitation, how is the current template not solicitation? JASpencer 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use on articles

This template seems to be in use on a number of articles. The documentation is unclear about whether this was or was not the intent. I understand prevailing practise is that banners like this should only be placed on talk pages.

Would you mind confirming your intent as to placement of this banner - article or talk - please; and if talk, consider checking what links here and moving banners off article space and to talk. And making the document more clear -e.g. "use only on the talk page of stub articles". thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified the documentation and added a {{check talk}} to flag misuse on articlespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]