跳转至: 导航搜索

"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[编辑]


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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, though WikiLawyering 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.



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.



  • 认为标签很打脸,中伤其本人。
  • 爱面子,认为标签非常丢脸。
  • 不想让其他编者对所编辑的页面有所关注。
  • 只是单纯不喜欢有标签的存在。


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.





老编辑尚都困扰于泛用标签,新编辑就更是无从下手。挂标签应先选专用标签,只能挂泛用标签时,则在讨论页留言解释,或在标签后加<!-- 隐藏注释 -->详述问题。