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 keep Thatcherism, delete Blairism. Wizardman 00:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a template: only transcluded in one article. Arguably not directly relevant to any others. Recommend subst'ing and deleting. Robofish (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It should also be noted that the creator of this template, and the Template:Blairism, which is also transcluded on only one page, has been blocked for six months for edit-warring and sockpuppetry, and so probably won't be contributing directly to our discussion here. John Carter (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I hadn't noticed that template. I'll include it in this nomination as well. On closer inspection, both these templates have issues with POV over what content to include - perhaps they shouldn't exist at all, as this kind of content may be better done as an article than a template. Robofish (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now transcluded in seven articles, including Thatcherism itself, four pressure groups dedicated to furthering Thatcherism, and two sections of other articles ('Legacy' of Margaret Thatcher, although that should be split into 'Political views' per other politicians; 'Political parties' of Libertarianism in the United Kingdom, which is fine, as Thatcherism is an ideology embraced, for example, by UKIP). Bastin 10:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not fine at all. Thatcherism was not a libertarian philosophy. Thatcherism melded free-market philosophy with very conservative social policy. It should be removed from Libertarianism in the United Kingdom. Fig (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has a citation, and could easily have dozens more. In fact, tomorrow, I believe I'll write a section in the Libertarianism in the United Kingdom article about the relationship with Thatcherism.
For what it's worth (and it's not really), you may be getting confused between Thatcherism and 'What Went Down Between 1979 and 1990'. Thatcher, for example, experienced her only Commons defeat trying to legalise Sunday trading. You are correct to note that there is a faction of 'Thatcherites' that were social conservatives (the literature clearly denotes them as much as it does the libertarians), but to suggest that Thatcherism was not related to libertarianism is absurd. That's particularly the case if you look at the organisations that formed the intellectual and ideological backbone of Thatcherism: IEA, ASI, CPS, TFA, etc. All of them are almost universally recognised as both libertarian/classical liberal and Thatcherite, proving that the movement beyond Thatcher herself is clearly a libertarian one. Bastin 19:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep Thatcherism, no position on Blairism. First, I should note that I despise all these 'side-bar' templates. They are very disruptive to the article and are usually placed in articles arbitrarily. I will always believe that navigational boxes are best placed at the foot of the article. However, that notwithstanding, there's no reason not to have navboxes on POV grounds, as one can easily place references on the talk page. I disagree that the Thatcherism template is only relevant to one article; Conservative Way Forward and No Turning Back were set up with the explicit aim of furthering Thatcherism, and the Centre for Policy Studies basically defined Thatcherism (I've now transcluded the template there). There are also other potential articles that don't currently exist that could easily be constructed from the huge coverage of Thatcherism (perhaps Thatcherism and libertarianism, Thatcherism and the European Union, etc) that cover specific areas of Thatcherite relations with other issues, as opposed to Thatcher's relations with them. Blairism, on the other hand, has never been as significant as a movement (rather than just Blair himself and his allies), nor is it likely to be, and there are significantly less coverage of Blairism as a coherent ideology in reliable sources than there is of Thatcherism. Hence, it would be hard to create or identify many articles related to Blairism closely enough to transclude. The 'creator' of the templates wasn't a fan of discussion (he was a fan, however, of claiming that Because He Was The Creator, His Opinion Rules All), so I'm sure his absence won't be too sorely missed. Bastin 12:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 06:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err, the nomination rationale doesn't really apply any more, seeing as how ((Thatcherism)) is transcluded in seven articles - of which, six are uncontested. Bastin 10:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Keep Thatcherism which is now in use; Delete Blairism, not yet in use. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Blairism template as unused and not helpful for navigation. Neutral on the Thatcherism template because it may be possible to edit it down to something appropriate while still having enough links. Both of these sidebars are distortions of the normal use of navigation templates. Articles about such subjects as Anti-communism and Entrepreneurship are emphatically not part of a "series on Thatcherism", and it would be ludicrous to place this template on them. People and organizations that pre-date Thatcher and whose notability has nothing to do with Thatcherism per se (e.g., Milton Friedman, Conservative Party (UK), etc.) also don't belong. It appears that there enough clearly Thatcherite people and organizations to allow for a navbox, but that is what it should be about. These sorts of sidebars are often contain some dubiously-related articles, but for these two they appear to form a majority of the links. (Please note that my neutrality on ((Thatcherism)) is based on the presumption that it can be edited down to eliminate the non-relevant links. If the editors of the template can't bear that reduction, then it should be deleted.) --RL0919 (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2009 (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.
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 deletePlastikspork―Œ(talk) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is there's nothing to say that the team who wins the Challenge Cup will compete in the Grand Final. There is zero connection between the two competitions. But to win the WCC you must have already won a grand final so your team will already be in that template. I think it's pointless to reproduce that same team template just because the grand final winning team goes on to win a stand alone match 3 months later.--Jeff79 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a team's WCC Winners template won't necessarily be identical to that of their previous year's Grand Final Winners template.Julianhall (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Julianhall. Also, your logic doesn't follow through Jeff. In that case, for every year a team has won both the Challenge Cup and the Super League (Bradford in 2003, for example), should we delete one or the other because they're 'represented by grand final winning team templates'? I have a separate suggestion, I'll make it on WP:RL GW(talk) 13:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I had a problem with them being deleted the first time, sometimes the WCC team is a completely different team from the GF. Mattlore (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the real crux of the issue here. The fact is, the grand final winning team and the WCC winning team aren't sometimes completely different. They are never completely different. The difference between the sides that win the grand finals and the sides that compete in the WCC is minimal. If discussions such as this exist, where the merit of championship team templates is in question, what possible chance do these have? I'm not trying to downplay the importance of the WCC. I've done a lot of work on WCC articles over the years. But it is not defining of a player in the same way that training all year with a team and winning a grand final with them is. But more importantly, the fact that they won the WCC means they are already part of the template for the team that won the infinitely more important championship (unless they were brought into the team during the off season, which further lessens their connection with it and the need for a template).--Jeff79 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well if your main objection to the templates is that the teams are largely the same, then I disagree and think they should be kept. If you have other objections then I am quite willing to reconsider. Mattlore (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, as you suggest, a matter of opinion that the teams are largely the same. It's a matter of fact. Let's look at the numbers for the three most recent:
The teams that compete in the WCC are, by definition, the grand final-winning teams. The whole point of the WCC is to have the two champions facing off. I don't see how anyone can dispute that. The notability of the WCC is dwarfed by the notability of winning a grand final. I don't see how anyone can dispute that either. The relatively small number of differences in sides that compete in the GFs and WCC are made up largely of personnel brought into the team in the off season. People who didn't contribute to the team's major success in reaching the WCC, thus diluting the need for them to linked together by additional navbox templates.--Jeff79 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If its a problem of additional navbox templates both teams could be listed in the same one under the title 2009 Super League and 2010 World Club Champions, well its option to try and please both sides --sss333 (talk) 05:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 05:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be great if the future discussion could address the feasibility of a merger as well, per sss333. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 05:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is not feasible as it would mean the additional players from the off-season being placed under the banner of Grand Final winners. Just not the case. There is simply no need for any navbox linking together players added to a championship-winning team during the off season.--Jeff79 (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Jeff that merging is not a good compromise. Keep the WCC templates and use navbox on individual articles if they have too many templates. Mattlore (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, taken from above: "People who didn't contribute to the team's major success in reaching the WCC, thus diluting the need for them to linked together by additional navbox templates" well they are also super league teams that get players just for the finals and they didn't help the team get there but they can play in the championship winning team and thier name will be listed in the champions template, your other points do stand though--sss333 (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2009 (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:Infobox U. S. Federal Government
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 per CSD T3 Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 05:11, 21 November 2009 (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.