Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 25 February 27 >

February 26[edit]

Template:Infobox pseudoscience (2nd nomination)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TfDs for this template:
Template:Infobox pseudoscience (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rather than containing facts and statistics per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes), this infobox templates is to present POV information and the limit on space in the template prevents complying with WP:NPOV policy. This template is a way for some editors to draw special, isolated attention to their view on the topic rather than have that view presented alongside other material in the text of the articles. Forking POV content into its own limited-spaced template within an article works against resolving disagreements by consensus. If obvious, the lack of scientific status of any topic should be evident from the first paragraph of the article. If debatable, its scientific status should be conveyed in more depth in the article. Any navigation provided by this template to the Pseudoscience article already is achieved by Template:Pseudoscience. The wrongness of this pejorative template is especially acute in view of the ongoing Arbitration Committee's Pseudoscience Discretionary Sanctions. There is no need for this infobox template. This template cannot comply with content policy. Deleting this template will remove a device that can be used by some to inflame others passion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not all pseudoscience articles are contentious; if this template is inappropriate for a specific article then it should be removed after discussion at that article's talk page. For non-contentious articles, this template compliments the lead paragraph and fulfills the purpose of an infobox per the MOS. VQuakr (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One the one hand, I think the use of the template can justified: For an example of proper use for an article which is not a hot-button issue here, see Astrology. There are three potential problems with the use of this template: first, the heading "Pseudoscientific concepts" as possibly prejudicial -- the overwhelming number of its uses are where the material is undoubtedly pseudoscience. & therefore compatible with arbcom. Second, the use of the template on any particular page,-- but arguments for its use on any particular article belong on the article talk page. Third, arguments regarding the wording of the "claims" section--this too can be discussed in the article. But on the other hand, the argument above that it is unnecessary and just provides one more thing to argue about seems fairly reasonable also. The role of the template seems to be to summarize the lead paragraph. In my experience, trying to summarize things into an overly brief compass is a frequent source of trouble, and a remarkable number of arguments in all fields have arisen because of efforts to do so, and many good editors have been lost to us as a result. . As I said in the previous TfD, "We have wasted too much time debating these. Debates on such tags are essentially lame--we would do better writing the articles to achieve the provision of sourced information." (I was notified of this discussion on my use talk page,but I reviewed the matter afresh before commenting, and only looked at the end to see what my previous comment was) DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is such a thing as unambiguous pseudoscience, and there's nothing wrong with labelling it as such. There are some articles where this is the most appropriate infobox. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if the categorization is in dispute, that can be decided on a case-by-case. Useful summarization; what an infobox is supposed to do. Abeg92contribs 21:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should only be used when there is consensus to describe the subject as pseudoscience. As to offending anybody, we don't give a flying f@$K about that. We use pejoratives all the time because RS use them. If a subject is considered by RS as pseudoscience or stupid, we aren't allowed to use editorializing to whitewash the matter. We must reproduce what the RS say, offense be damned. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Db-a10[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy keep – no point in deleting the template while the CSD is in force. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-a10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If there is a duplicate, then a merge should take place, not a delete. Japanese knotweed (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Current U.S. First Spouses[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current U.S. First Spouses (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There's a little background that needs to be established, so please bear with me. I first became aware of this navbox template during an AfD for one of its then-listed first spouses, Lou Rell. The AfD was brought about by another editor because of the lack of notability of Lou Rell having his own Wikipedia article for no reason other than just being the husband of then-Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell. Other less than notable first spouses that had their own articles faced similar AfDs, with additional non-notable first spouses only listed as red-linked last names on the template. Since red links encourage articles to be created, this led me to ask a simple question during the AfD: "Why does something such as the navbox {{Current U.S. First Spouses}} exist if articles on first spouses are generally considered inappropriate?" I later concluded with the following opinion: "[U]nless it is completely appropriate for all 50 first spouses to have their own articles, a navbox promoting the names of a multitude of non-notable people should probably be the next thing [to be deleted]." Over the many months since that AfD, I have thought about and watched this navbox contemplating if I would ever put it through a TfD or not. With the current slate of first spouses being comprised of 40 red links, seven blue links to articles, four blue links to redirects, and five having no spouse, my mind is made up: A template listing the names of people of which only a small handful will ever meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines ought not exist. This template, as interesting and as good-intentioned as it may be, just encourages the creation of articles of non-notable people. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_26&oldid=1085548846"