User talk:Morriswa/Archives/2014/December

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The Center Line: Fourth Quarter 2014

 * —MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of 10:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Excessive tagging
This is uncalled for, and you should never pull such a stunt again. Breaking down each of your tags:
 * 1) This article needs attention from an expert in U.S. Streets. (December 2014)
 * No, it doesn't. There's nothing in that article that requires expert attention. The attention it needs can be handled by any editor, regardless of "expert" status or not.
 * 1) This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents. (December 2014)
 * 2) *This article has no lead section. In fact, it is a single-sentence stub.
 * 3) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (December 2014)
 * 4) *This one is actually appropriate, but a WP:PROD would handle this better because it would set the article up for deletion, forcing people to add content to assert the notability to forestall deletion.
 * 5) The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. (December 2014)
 * 6) *This tag is inappropriate. There is not enough content in the article to justify that tag because the article does not present any bias to one viewpoint over another.
 * 7) This article does not cite any references or sources. (December 2014)
 * 8) *Appropriate, but when it's a single-sentence stub, I wouldn't expect any citations. There's nothing in the article, at the moment, that's controversial. There are no statistics, nor any direct quotations. It doesn't concern a living person (WP:BLP), so honestly, nothing in the article needs to be cited.
 * 9) *However, the article doesn't provide any information that would assert the notability of the subject, which is the third tag, and if it did, that would need to be cited.
 * 10) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (December 2014)
 * 11) * This is an appropriate tag, but as a non-notable topic, it's unlikely that anything will link to this article.
 * 12) This article needs additional or more specific categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles. (December 2014)
 * 13) * Not appropriate as the article was categorized, and you modified the one of the categories to make it more specific.

So of the 7 tags you placed, 4 weren't appropriate, 2 were, and another could have been dealt with in a better fashion. In the future, please don't add inappropriate cleanup tags to new articles, especially when doing so means there is more of the page devoted to the banners than the actually content.  Imzadi 1979  →   06:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet again, someone in the project is in disagreement with my editing. I thought all of the tags I added (I didn't add the orphan one) were appropriate. This is not a "stunt", nor is it any attempt at vandalism or controversy. In your opinion, when should tags like that ever be added to an article, huh? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Over half of those tags did not apply to the situation with the article in question, as I already noted above. Please re-read my detailed comments, because your reply immediately above implies that you didn't. If you're unsure about why any of them are not appropriate, please ask a specific question so I can follow up.
 * You are responsible for your own edits around here, including those done through automation like Twinkle. You might want to refresh yourself with the agreement you made to close the RfC/U last year. I know this isn't the first time I've mentioned these excessive tagging jobs to you, so you have to know that this behavior is controversial. Look, you can do good things, but it's disheartening to take the time to write out detail reasons why 4 out of 7 cleanup tags on single-sentence stub article (one that will probably end up deleted) is not an appropriate way to handle things. Seriously, if you find another single-sentence article on a minor gravel road someplace, PROD or AfD it and move on.  Imzadi 1979  →   10:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you thought the tags didn't apply. Yes, I DID read your comments above. And, yes, I KNOW that I am responsible for all of my edits. "Excessive" and "controversial" are some harsh terms to use. How is this an "inappropriate" way to handle a situation like this? I don't know how to PROD or AfD an article. What is really disheartening is when someone is genuinely trying to help out and gets the door slammed in their face. I'm trying to be nice, courteous, and friendly, but I'm upset. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's take the worst of the inappropriate tags by itself. You tagged the article with a template that says: "This article's lead section may not adequately summarize key points of its contents." The entire article is one sentence. That article has no separate lead section. Therefore, the lead can't be too short. For the sake of argument, let's assume someone came by and wanted to create a lead. How do you summarize a single sentence that is essentially a dictionary definition?

Ok, the other tag that I consider the worst offender says, "The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints." Well, we're talking about a single sentence on an insignificant gravel road. There are no examples, and that single sentence has an exceedingly neutral perspective of the topic of a gravel road in Louisiana. There are road articles where I could imagine using that tag. Take a look at County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan), and assume that I left out the opinions of the local groups like the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community or Save the Wild U.P. If I had left out their opinions, the article would have a bias, and then someone would be justified in placing that cleanup tag on the article. However, unless you have some personal knowledge that Yount Road (Fairview Alpha, Louisiana)‎‎ and its construction were opposed, that single sentence definition just can't be biased.

You also like to tag articles with "This article needs attention from an expert in U.S. Streets/Roads." That tag should be used for articles that need someone familiar with the topic area to clean up errors and issues. Let's say we have an article that's tossing around information on traffic counts, but it's badly worded. Let's say that it's trying to compare AADT with AAST and CAADT for calculating traffic counts. Then we would need someone knowledgeable about roads to take a look at the article to figure out a way to reword the confusing wording, and maybe find different sources that use the same statistical method so the numbers being compared aren't apples and oranges. However, the issues with the Yount Road article are much more basic than that: it needs information from reliable sources to expand the content into more than a sentence, and it needs that content to tell us why that roadway is noteworthy and should have an article. Those problems do not require an "expert in U.S. Streets" to solve.

As for excessive, you might think it's harsh, but the number of tags you added to that article dwarfed the content of the article. Regarding controversial, the word's definition is: "controversial: (adj.) giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement", and in this case, I am publicly disagreeing with you, and I'm fairly confident that I'm not the only one who would disagree with your tagging of that article.  Imzadi 1979  →   11:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not the only one . Allen, it's not necessary to create the "big three" sections and tag them as empty if it's a short stub.  It is perfectly OK to be a stub; we'll get to it...eventually.  Whenever I want to tag something, I ask myself one simple question, "Am I willing to fix the issue I am tagging?"  If yes, I tag it so I'll remember it and so it goes onto my watchlist.  If not, I close the page and move on to something else. –Fredddie™ 13:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)