< March 15 March 17 >

March 16

[edit]

Template:ColumbiaRiverGeobox

[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) 00:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ColumbiaRiverGeobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

as per Template:St. Johns River geobox, propose merging this back with the article. the convention is to not split the infobox/geobox from the article. the solution would be to move it to article space, merge the contents, and then redirect to preserve attribution. WOSlinker (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2015 (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 bus station

[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) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox bus station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Entirely redundant to ((Infobox station)), which is meant to be used for "rail, tram, bus and intermodal transport stations". Alakzi (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2015 (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:St. Johns River geobox

[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) 00:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St. Johns River geobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

propose merging this back with the article. the convention is to not split the infobox/geobox from the article. the solution would be to move it to article space, merge the contents, and then redirect to preserve attribution. Frietjes (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2015 (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:RMcontested

[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) 04:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RMcontested (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template has not been used since 2008. Newer procedures for converting technical page move requests to controversial requests to be discussed have been implemented. See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves § Smoothing the transition from technical to contested requests for background and analysis. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2015 (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:Eva Longoria

[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) 04:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eva Longoria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. Not exactly a comprehensive body of work! Rob Sinden (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, producer navboxes aren't exactly encouraged, a couple of these are just executive producer roles, and she's not particularly known for being a famous movie producer. The links don't really gel, and don't form a cohesive set. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That second sentence seems to be a lot of jargon to me. It seems like you have cut out the unimportant roles and still have at least three remaining. If you want to make the point that more of them don't belong on the template then you might have a point and you should remove them. However, if you have trimmed the template down and it continues to have the minimum acceptable number of links, we should keep the template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that film producer / TV executive producer navboxes aren't all that common. If they are to be here, they should be for producers with real creative vision, say ((Joss Whedon)) or ((J. J. Abrams)) (although they have directed also), so that there is a true connection between the articles - otherwise we'll end up with navbox creep. The links here are nothing more than a loose list of production credits - there's no value to this Navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the relevant Wikiproject advises against any filmography navboxes except director navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2015 (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 multi-sport competition event

[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 relisted on 2015 April 7. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 10:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox multi-sport competition event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox sport event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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 rail transport in Catalonia

[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. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox rail transport in Catalonia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Truly massive infobox–sidebar combo, which is variously redundant to ((Infobox rail line)), ((Transport in Barcelona)), ((Trambesòs)) and ((Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya lines)). Alakzi (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree to delete this template. In fact, I am currently rewriting articles related to rail transport in Catalonia, removing ((Infobox rail transport in Catalonia)) and putting in ((Infobox rail line)) or ((Infobox public transit)) instead. Mllturro (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2015 (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 Sydney public transport

[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. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sydney public transport (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox rail line)) or ((Infobox water transit)). We don't need separate infoboxes for each city's public transport systems. Alakzi (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2015 (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:Maintained

[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. The main concern listed was "page ownership", with many noting that this was despite or due to the note in the template itself. Even some supporting keeping felt the template's language needed editing at the very least. So with that in mind, while the result for this template is Delete, there is no prejudice against starting a discussion somewhere concerning what such language in a new template might be. (At one of the Village Pumps, perhaps?). Considering the contention in this discussion, it would probably be seen as disruptive to create such a new template by merely being bold. - jc37 21:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maintained (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While this deletion discussion may be a contentious issue, editors are reminded to keep their comments on topic and remain civil. Personal attacks will not help your stance and could result in administrator action.
Previous TfDs for this template:

This template is all sorts of trouble. Though it claims it doesn't imply page ownership, it really does. It doesn't have much of a positive use, and if an editor truly needs assistance they can use the page history (or post a question on the article talk page), not using this ownership implying tag. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, if you were really serious about eliminating my counterargument, you'd have gone through Category:Maintained articles one by one, checked to see if the editor was still active, and then deleted the template if necessary. It would perhaps be even easier to write a bot script that would do that, but since that area is not my forte I wouldn't know.

Outdated contact information is not a problem unique to this template's usage; it is a systemic one. Many WikiProjects, even ones still considered active, list as interested users people who stopped editing years ago. If you seriously want us all to roll up our sleeves and do something about it, a TfD is not the way to get us to do it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so we should do this based on your opinion, man. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, building consensus is all about sharing opinions, I'd say. And it's an honour to be included in any comparison with The Dude ;-) Squinge (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the best comeback I could have imagined—no, wait, it's better. Made me laugh, and in a good way . On that note I think we should end this subthread. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I overestimated you when I interpreted your cutesiness as an attempt at a counterargument. I should not have interpreted it as an actual attempt to make a point. Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've found your badgering so effective that I've strengthened my !vote. Keep up the good work. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
x× 0 = 0. Long version: Declaring you don't need any proof is effectively asking that your !vote be discounted. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I'm sure you'd like "all" the delete !votes to be discounted. What the overwhelming number of editors disapproving this template have said is that the template is subject to abuse. We're here because of one such instance, and what that has done is to raise the question: Why do we have this template? What does it imply? What kind of impact could it have on the new editors to whom it is aimed? These are reasonable, rational questions, and they are raised every day by editors in determining whether to keep or delete a template. Coretheapple (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that someone who felt that calling it "OWN bait" is asking to not be taken too seriously enough for any elaboration on said !vote to be taken seriously either. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I see no problem with having editors refer to the article history to contact someone". I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"saying you aren't doing it doesn't actually mean you aren't doing it" It doesn't mean you are, then, either, you must admit, which sort of wraps it up for your argument. The way to combat page ownership is to actually act against editors who do assert it, not delete templates whose wording makes you uncomfortable. Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you began reading what I wrote in the middle of a sentence. I find that a decidedly odd way to read, myself, but to each their own. The beginning of that sentence you quoted part of was "If you do something". If you do something, you are doing it. If you do something while saying you aren't doing it, you are still doing it. Saying otherwise doesn't change that. So it actually does mean you are. In the rest of what I wrote, I elaborated that I consider this template to not only be doing the something in question, it is so obviously doing that thing that I am really surprised that people are asserting it isn't. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"as a new user I'd feel like inclined to contact these people rather than be bold and make changes myself" I think more new users are scared of being warned and/or blocked by our eternally competent RC patrollers than they are of offending someone by making a change (and, on that score, I learned by watching new editors edit at an edit-a-thon a couple of weeks back that a well-constructed, lengthy, extensively edited page is intimidating enough to them without even bothering to look at the talk page and see if it's a got a "maintained" notice or not). Contacting an experienced Wikipedian who's offered to be contacted (assuming, of course, they're still actively editing) would probably actually be better and more likely to produce the desired result than diving right in.

As for people leaving these notices and then giving up editing, well, as I said to Andy at the top of the page, just ... delete ... the ... notice ... from ... the ... page. Is that so hard? Why do people think every problem here needs to be solved by deleting something? All it takes is a little elbow grease—one edit and the template's off the page. Problem solved. Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you expect me to do when someone on Wikipedia is WRONG! There are two reasons I hate this WP:BLUDGEON idea that you shouldn't respond to every single vote you're opposed to. First, there are closing admins who tend to just count !votes and don't always see the one argument that casts an apparent majority as the foolery that it is. Second, I think that if someone cared enough to write an argument in support of their !vote, one that made use of logical fallacies of policy misunderstandings, they are entitled to an individual reply asking them to reconsider. Consider that many of these are likely drive-by voters who will not return to this page in any event. Third, I think it is our duty as Wikipedians to our fellow Wikipedians to help them understand how they misunderstand, and thus prevent policy misunderstandings from further proliferating. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"... a new user can't figure out, or doesn't want to use the page history to find assistance ..." My point exactly. Where you err is in your next sentence: "In that case the user should simply post their question on the article talk page". Whatever we'd like new users to do to make our lives easier, the fact is that they are new users and thus do not know, nor are able to intuit, what we'd like them to do. It is our responsibility to figure out how to respond to whatever course we leave them free to take. As one of my old football coaches once said, cracking up the team but still making a valid point, "We don't know what they're goona do, but they're gonna do it." Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who started this, Andy? And coming from someone with your history, that's rich. Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oi. Too far. Ad hominem attacks only make you and your opinion seem worse; someone's history doesn't affect the validity of their arguments and "you did it so that means you can't tell me not to" is a crap argument. I would say that you can reply to whoever you like, as long as each comment is saying something you haven't said before, but others are entitled to advise you not to bludgeon anyone. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 20:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 1
[edit]
See above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove those templates from the pages in question. Responding to the problem of templates that give the name of no-longer-active users by deleting the template is like deciding that, since some of the rooms in your house is a mess, it's just better to demolish it than keep keeping it tidy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I removed the template, or found someone else to adopt the articles, that would only address a handful of the ~4700 transclusions, and wouldn't stop the problem from happening again. More like digging up a shrub in your yard that you can't keep pruned.
I'm not very clear on why this template would be more newbie-friendly than simply encouraging them to post on the talk page - directly contacting a specific user fragments conversations about the article content. Since you obviously find this useful, can you link an example? Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for taking some time to respond (St. Patrick's Day got in the way (after a couple of pints of Guinness I thought it best to stay away from this discussion until the morning after, and I was working on another article that I was trying to finish in time to nominate for DYK. Anyway ... see here. The comment was directly addressed to me, something that I doubt the reader could have intuited from the history page. The discussion led to broader discussion at which a consensus emerged in favor of changing the dab term in the article name. This, to me, was Wikipedia working the way it should. Are we so sure this would have happened without the template? Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't see how this example helps your case even one bit. On the contrary. The person in question indeed assumed that you were the "owner" of the article, and invited you personally for a personal tour of the house. I'm sure that put you on the top of the world but it is not exactly the purpose of the template, which supposedly is to give editors a person to write if they have questions about sourcing, not a person to write to invite to their businesses. That was a personal invitation, not one for all editors of the article, so it doesn't sit well with me at all. Secondly, everything he says in that note could have been equally conveyed if addressed to all editors reading the talk page. By the logic you seem to be employing, Wikipedia articles should have bylines, not "maintained" templates. Coretheapple (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was kidding, Guinness takes priority ;) I disagree with the above analysis - the post is a little clueless, but pointed out some useful information; although it's addressed to Dan, it might not have been posted at all if the user had thought he'd be talking to a void. And aren't history pages "bylines"? (BTW, I did remove the unnecessary contact information from that post.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, history pages are most emphatically not bylines. They are a record of people editing an article. We don't allow editors to engage in activity so as to "own" articles by asserting themselves as being in a higher class than other editors. That is why this template is so anomalous, and why it is at present a snow delete. Coretheapple (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Coretheapple: He invited me to visit (I still haven't been able to, FWIW), so I could take interior photos of the house showing some the features the article describes. I have never understood the wording of the template to be so restrictive as to only refer to help with sources. There are a lot of issues having a contact person helps with, and this was one of them. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you should go ahead then and create a Template:Contact Person template and see how that flies. Coretheapple (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could reword and/or rename this one—you know, "fix it through normal editing", like it says at the top of this page. I'd be amenable to that. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the template were created so that people couldn't stick their names in there, and just said "Editors are available to answer questions about sourcing and verification in relation to this article. Please consult the editing history, this talk page and its archives," I wouldn't see anything wrong with that. But that would be tantamount to deletion of this template, and of course it could be reversed by "normal editing" and we're back where we started. I think we need this template formally deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite my initial indecision, I am going to go ahead and upgrade this to strong keep; I've been convinced by the (low) quality of the discussion here consisting almost entirely of speculation about hypothetical problems. This template has existed since 2005. Surely, sometime in the last decade, one of those problems must have actually happened, and someone must be able to offer a diff? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
despite what the template itself says, of course it promotes the idea of ownership. Despite what you yourself say, it is not clear that it does. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know what I wrote and I stand by it. Critiquing every single comment doesn't actually help your cause - it looks like an attempt at ownership of a discussion centred on concerns about ownership. I explained why it lends itself to inappropriate ownership of articles and I explained why it remains redundant to other (far more acceptable and collegial) strategies. I think the problems are very clear. St★lwart111 01:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can people please introduce some evidence when they simply restate what they've seen every other editor saying? Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read other arguments so that is not occurring here. I have augmented my statement above to make it even stronger. Prhartcom (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so, if you mean basically saying you don't care whether or not there's a man behind the curtain is strengthening your argument. Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a counterargument that one would expect, one that deserves a serious reply—the evidence of things not seen. Obviously, if you base your argument on the idea that this is happening, this which is impossible to measure, then there is no way to persuade you to change your mind (well, perhaps we could measure the non-vandalism edit rates on articles before and after the template is added to the talk page, but that's not something we have the time for at the moment). But I do not think that something immeasurable should be the basis for this deletion discussion. At least, bringing this up is a more rational response than saying you don't need any evidence. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't technically be impossible to measure, but as you say it's vastly impractical to attempt it. That said, it seems you agree with me that this deterrence effect is a real possibility. I discuss below the cognitive bias known as the "authority bias", which is the human tendency to defer to the opinions of experts; this cognitive bias makes it even more likely that the deterrence effect is real. So despite measurement hurdles, in conducting a cost/benefit analysis, I find that the risk of deterring editor participation by using the template outweighs the benefits that the template provides. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will they? I have been surprised to learn how many people here just set their preferences to "put every article I edit on my watchlist", ending up with thousands of articles/templates/project page/ on their watchlists, a number effectively doubled since most editors (properly IMO) set their preferences so that talk page edits show up on their watchlists. I know one guy who has edited so much this way that any attempt to open his 20,000+-article watchlist invariably causes whatever browser he's using, and sometimes the computer itself, to crash. So he just uses recent changes instead.

In this situation it should hardly be a surprise that a new editor, or reader, posing a question on a low-traffic talk page may well feel themselves to be like the proverbial tree falling in a forest ... "Did anyone even notice? Did I actually edit? Do I even exist?" Having a contact person, when that person is active, is at least a slight improvement over that situation.

By the way, Kanguole, thank you for making an original argument ... that's how you avoided a snarky reply. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people have been accused of ownership behavior in RfCs and ArbCom cases. Have any of those accusations ever involved the use of this template? Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I won't badger you. But, since I have now shared the personal experience that has led me to support keeping this template, I'd be interested in reading what your personal experience is to the contrary.

Most new editors that I've seen don't get to the talk page before they start editing; some don't even seem to know they exist. And on the talk page it's always the last banner, under the project and article milestone banners (assuming the latter exists), with the same manila background as all the others, easily missed while scrolling down. So I don't see how it would so easily discourage editors, either old or new. (See? You wrote a thoughtful oppose vote so I gave you a thoughtful response) Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example of article ownership:Coretheapple, you have on at least two occasions in this discussion thread made your comments personal -- some of them directed at me, some directed at Daniel Case. I've ignored it until now as a way to keep myself from responding to you. But I realized that I have to respond to you for the following reason: I remembered something that occurred a little less than two months ago. And it's because of what I remembered that I find your authoritative tone and certainty regarding article ownership and editors with ulterior motives to be no less than hypocritical as well as showing the article ownership argument in this discussion to be quite flawed.
At the Mickey Rooney article back on January 26, 2015, I made a series of very good edits over the course of about 4 hours. About 1.5 hours later, you began systematically deleting my edits without using the "undo" button; you just went through and returned everything to what it had been before I started editing. You worked at it for about a half hour. Then you continued with more the next day. Everything I added or improved or copyedited was undone by you. History of those edits can be found here [1] and here [2].
If ever there was evidence of article ownership and an ulterior motive, your removals of my edits are it. There is no maintained template on that article talk page, yet, the aggressive assertion of article ownership definitely occurred for those two days in January. Further, it's obvious through this example that the maintained template isn't a source of article ownership, editors are. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Editors are." You're right in the sense that we are here because of you - specifically because of your edit warring over having your name in this template. Your edit warring to "maintain" the contentious Meghan Trainor article had previously caused me to raise the issue of this template's deletion on the template talk page. You keep reminding of us that and I encourage you to continue to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So trying to preserve a template you consider beneficial to the project in an XfD where the fundamental logic of the argument for deletion is "I have a bad feeling about this" regardless of whether any evidence to justify that bad feeling even exists, is now considered "ownership"? If this is the way delete voters in this TfD define ownership, this should be closed as speedy keep pronto. Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coretheapple is correct. I will additionally point out a few things: 1) There is empirical evidence of the authority bias. It isn't in the form of a study about the effects of this particular template being used on this particular website, but there are psychological studies that have identified the existence of this cognitive bias in analogous scenarios. Please don't make me trudge through psychological literature to prove this point. 2) No, pointing out a psychological phenomenon as a justification is not a manifestation of the authority bias. Proclaiming myself to be an expert psychologist (which I haven't, and am not) would clearly create such a bias, but not simply making arguments. Similarly, if an expert editor engages in discussion with other editors about an issue in an article, that does not create an authority bias; but by using the template to proclaim themselves an authority on the article, it does create an authority bias, and people will be more likely to defer to that editor simply because they perceive that editor to be a subject-matter expert. 3) Coming across a discussion where a bunch of people overwhelmingly oppose something does not create an authority bias. That would require delete !voters to all be viewed as experts on this subject. I hope this clears up the meaning of "authority bias". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember what it's called but there is another cognitive bias whereby people just do what they see other people doing without really thinking about it. I contend that's as valid an explanation for at least some of the delete !votes as yours.

Where a phenomenon can be observed and measured, people's feelings about are not something we should be basing decisions on. I think the fact that a bunch of people feel this creates an impression of ownership is about as relevant to whether we should keep it as the recent cold winters in most of the U.S. are to the question of whether climate change is really occurring. They may have a direct emotional impact on people's view of the problem that is hard not to notice, but the real evidence lies elsewhere and is unaffected by the madness of crowds. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2
[edit]
(I know my brief summaries aren't complete; I've tried to capture the main point for each. If I've misquoted you or missed your main point, feel free to modify my summary if you can keep it concise)
Before making this list, my impression was that 99% of the keep argument was to facilitate communication directly with the maintainers; now I see that only 5 of 9 referred directly to this benefit, though I think that it is implied by some of the others. So I still believe that the main reason is to facilitate this direct communication.
IMHO, facilitating such direct communication is not a reason to keep the template, but a reason to delete. IMO, we should facilitate and encourage discussion and collaboration with the larger community in more public places, e.g., article talk page and project talk pages instead of user talk pages or e-mail. Announcing that certain users should be contacted first or in preference to others seems to fly in the face of the WP ideal of broad collaboration described in WP:CONACHIEVE YBG (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@YBG: by your rationale the ((ping)), ((YGM)) and other such templates, which facilitate direct communication, should be deleted too. Nothing in the ((maintained)) template suggests communication in any particular manner or venue. – S. Rich (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an easy one to refute: 'ping' does not exclude other people from joining discussion. Whereas the 'maintained' encourages the bypassing the article talk page: I've seen it many times people chat in a user page about an article content, while normally they must do this guess where? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For regularly visited and watched articles, you are right—questions regarding article content should be discussed publicly on an article's talk page, and even on a related WikiProject. However, many of the articles I've developed get <20 hits a day and may not have anyone but the person who took it through GAN/FAC watching it. Yes, we should be watching these articles, but if I take a short break Wiki—though I try to review my watchlist once every day or two—I sometimes miss talk page questions and they go completely unanswered. If someone posts the question on my talk page, I get an email about it and promptly reply. And as I stated previously, sometimes the questions do not pertain to the article with this template. If a visitor or new editor is concerned that no one will see the question on some obscure, underdeveloped article, seeing this template on a related article might give them someplace obvious to turn to. – Maky « talk » 15:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YOu may look it in another way: If an article is so obscure, then why bother? If nobody answers, the asker must be bold and update the article themselves by digging the info elsewhere. Unless the asker asks an idle question. The whole idea of wikipedia is cooperation of the multitudes of people. Until now it worked. Your answer is, like, "if I am not here, wikipedia will perish miserably". If not WPOWNism, it is a sign of early wikipediholism. Relax, take the w'holism test and join the DGAF cabal. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If people have the sources and want to update the article, I *do not* ask them to wait for my approval. And that's certainly not what this template is about. I'm referring to cases where people want more information about or from the sources I've used. Not everyone's going to have access to this stuff. Most people don't have the private collection I have or access to a university library. And watch the accusations about WP:OWN. I suggest reviewing WP:AGF. I certainly get the concept of WP:DGAF, but that doesn't change the fact that hostile environments raise tensions and drive people out. If you truly DGAF (or even understand the concept), then then you wouldn't insult or provoke people who are not trolling this nomination. – Maky « talk » 18:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to me? Well, then, what's wrong with taking everyone's argument seriously? If I truly thought this was an ownership issue, I would loudly and publicly have said that this was all beneath me and it didn't matter to me what anyone else thought. And then left. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
re: what's wrong: WP:DTS maybe? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's addressed to people attempting to reopen closed or exhausted discussions, those that "have come to a natural end," not active ones. Eventually that will happen here, but it appears to not have done so yet. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem with challenging every person you disagree with is that it discourages people from expressing disagreement. However, I don't see that working for you here, given that this is overwhelmingly going against the template. Coretheapple (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement cancels itself out. If pointing out the flaws in a fundamentally faith-based delete argument, endlessly repeated by a slew of editors, to as many of those editors as possible "discourages people from expressing disagreement", then, as your second sentence suggests, it's not working.

Now, has it also ever occurred to you that a stack of !votes going one way may also discourage disagreement? People may feel intimidated, may not want to waste their votes, may want to get along with the people who've already voted and so forth. My purpose in challenging the reasoning of so many delete !votes is, in part, to empower these people to contribute, and I think I did.

I would also remind you that it's not the raw numbers that count. Closing admins, when they do their job properly, consider the logical and policy soundness of any prevailing argument ("it is 'not the vote' that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important.") as well as the quantifiable support for it. By pressing delete !voters to elaborate on their arguments, I am trying to ensure the latter.

I do this because it works. In the Flight 370 conspiracy theories AfD that I linked to above, some !voters admitted in their replies to me that indeed the article's problems did not require that it be deleted, just fixed. In fact, that's the problem here. The original nominator said in the AN/I thread that led to this that the template needed to either be deleted or reworded, suggesting he wasn't entirely sure this was the only necessary course of action (which nevertheless did not stop him from starting this TfD less than ten minutes later, without even trying to broach the issue on the template talk page.

No, I haven't changed any !votes here, and I wasn't expecting to. But quite a few have responded to my requests that they justify the bad vibe this template gives them with some hard evidence by abjuring the need for any such evidence. I would imagine any closing admin would take that lack of a foundation into account as well. Daniel Case (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All this goes to prove my point. Your constant hectoring of people who disagree with you concerning this abominable template consists of A)wall-o-text filibusterers and B) self-serving characterizations of delete arguments. I think you're being disruptive and I suggest that editors cease becoming involved in time-wasting argumentation with you. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just DC's hectoring, it's his blatant WP:IDHT and hypocrisy. He asks for examples when the very existence of this TfD began with strong annoyance over edit wars associated with this template, see Template talk:Maintained#Time to put up for deletion again? and Template talk:Maintained#Indeed it is being misused. Meanwhile, the evidence that the Template has contributed to improving articles is scant to non-existent: the proffered examples are on pages where the maintainer was certainly quite obvious. Choor monster (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask why, if that dispute is what prompted the TfD, no one has linked to it. But I know the answer because I looked at that AN/I thread. And I can understand why you (and especially you) would be reluctant to directly cite it

Primarily, that's because you started it. And not just in the literal sense, either. You didn't just open a thread complaining about Winkelvi—you titled it "Frequently incompetent editor promotes himself to page maintainer"

Wow! An undeniable personal attack in the very thread title. Sometimes that's enough to get people blocked. Lucky you, this time. At least you had the good sense to close it yourself. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was linked to by User:Calidum and by yourself. That's how I found out about it, and I linked to it as soon as I, very unsurprised, became aware of its existence. I didn't have the pleasure of participating in that, but there was one previous one concerning that user in which I did, and in the course of that edit-warring on the maintenance tag was an issue. That ANI was a doozy, let me tell you. Evidently Choor Monser was raising "competence" in the meaning of the term as used in WP:COMPETENCE, so calling that a personal attack is a bit of a stretch. Also you're not being particularly fair in characterizing the termination of that discussion. If you look at the discussion, you can see that he did so because that user had stopped the conduct that gave rise to the ANI. I.e., the edit warring over the template that we are discussing at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. And because the discussion was turning into irrelevant complaints. Furthermore, DC's summary above makes absolutely no sense. If I'm so reluctant, why did I put in links in the first place? WP:COMPETENCE was a major issue regarding WV's edits on Helen Hooven Santmyer; do read the archived Talk discussions before confusing this legitimate WP expectation of all editors, but especially of self-proclaimed maintainers, before you confuse it with a personal attack. Of course, this provides a clearcut refutation of your repeated claim that no examples of abuse of this template have been provided, so of course you have to dance around as many distracting irrelevant issues as you can think up. Choor monster (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say you were reluctant; I said that of delete !voters as a whole.
  • So, if "competence was a major issue" what, then, implicates the template when it was a single user's problem that got you to thinking of deleting this?
  • In what universe is calling someone "frequently incompetent" in larger text than most other text on a page not intuitively construed as a personal attack, or indicative of severe recklessness in the use of the language? Competence is rewquired ... indeed.
  • If this is the only instance of abuse any one can point to, we still do not have sufficient grounds for deletion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know there are legitimate cases where it would be best for new editors to check with an established editor – where the established editor is currently in the midst of some specific notable change to the article (refactor, change of emphasis, adding sections, etc.). But in all such cases, this activity can and should be simply noted as a new section on the talk page. As a talk section, it has a stated limited scope, and automatically has a limited duration (when it gets completed, challenged, forgotten, or even archived). Having this template circumvents this basic use of talk pages. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As well, I use the tag myself; even if I ever were to stop editing, people could easily use the email function on my userpage to send me an email, which I would promptly reply to. As well, for users who post their real names, the inquirers can contact them through a variety of means. So just because a user is inactive does not mean that the template cannot be useful for inquiring to a person.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 22:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't mind me asking, can you point me to the last time you were asked and responded to a user on your tage page as a likely result of this template? Looking through a few years of archives I see nothing... I could be missing it though EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind. All of the articles I put the template on are very niche subjects, so although I'm not receiving many comments due to my use of the template, the articles will be around for the rest of my lifetime; likely in that span of time more comments will slowly come. As for specifics, this conversation was likely due to the template, and perhaps a few emails I've gotten were as well.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 23:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While personally I think this discussion had nothing to do with a maintained tag (I suspect it was more he looked at the article history which pretty muched owned by you), but even you you think that, the "discussion" was simply another user alerting you that an article existed. I'm also not entirely sure how the template in question pertains at all to this as the article doesn't have a maintained temp but I'll assume it came from Briarcliff Manor, New York, not James Speyer. So even if the user came to you because of the tag, what did it result in? You adding a single category to an entirely different article from the one with the tag. So over a long period of time you have received a single, rather pointless message hypothetically from an article which you pretty much own, pertaining to an entirely different article which you didn't even edit (except your cat). EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Of course the results of discussions which are due to usage of ((Maintained)) are not relevant to whether or not the template is useful. It's likely the user did read the article history, just as likely as the idea that he went to the talk page of the article, where I do use the template in question. As well, it did result in plenty. Before he talked to me, I had no idea Wikipedia had an article on James Speyer. Due to that revelation, I added him and a link to his article on the Briarcliff Manor article's "Notable people" section, and changed the content the other user had just added from using an unreliable source to a reliable one, ensuring the preservation of that content.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 00:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem with just leaving a note on the talk page is that, you know, talk pages do get archived. Do you then rewrite the note? Repost it? Forget to do it? Then you have people who leave messages at the top of the talk page, pushing that down a section or two.

And consider what happens if we leave it up to individual editors to write the text for this. You'd have editors who might unintentionally word it in a way that clearly violates WP:OWN, to say nothing of editors who intentionally do so. By having a template with standardized text we can much better avoid that problem.

And lastly, it's a lot easier to see something on a talk page when it's in a banner at the top, as opposed to just regular ol' text in a section. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3
[edit]
Funny, then, that from ten years of use no one has adduced any actual evidence of misuse. Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funnier still when you realize that its misuse is unlikely to produce the type of tangible on-wiki evidence you demand. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Funniest that you admit your entire argument is faith-based. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I've presented evidence, just not the kind you demand. But keep thinking that. It's hilarious. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Since you are not only not providing evidence of this, but basing your !vote on such evidence, the onus is especially upon you to give some examples of this "wide misuse".

If this were a purely facial challenge (i.e., the template had just been created and not used widely), I might have been more solicitous of your position. But with ten years of actual use out there, anyone arguing "potential for misuse" should probably show examples. Anyone arguing "has been misused" cannot expect to have their !vote taken seriously if they don't. Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

''So the question should not be "where are the examples?"; it should be "is the risk worth the benefits of the template?" In order to have such a question, there'd have to be evidence OF a risk. If your question were THE question, you'd be asking a question regarding something for which there is no premise. And there's no evidence because no one has yet given examples of the result of such an alleged risk. So, yes, the question first has to be "where are the examples?". No examples to provide = no risk to take. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop asking for examples. We're here because you have used the template problematically during edit wars. You know this. -- Calidum 18:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The hell I will stop asking for examples. Misguided edit warring isn't article ownership. We're here because there is alleged article ownership due to the template. No one has been able to provide examples of the alleged ownership. As Daniel Case already pointed out, we don't delete things because of unproven allegations and assumptions of bad faith. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You truly believe that because you have not directly witnessed something ocurring, there is zero risk of it? Because that makes zero sense. It takes little imagination to understand how this template risks discouraging editors from challenging the template-editor's actions--indeed, the overwhelming majority of people participating in this conversation have understood it. If you can't even imagine this template having that effect, I'm not sure what to tell you. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The template is already clear on the first point, and the second point won't mean a thing. On the contrary, we're here because of edit wars that have pointed up the fundamental flaws of this template. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the template itself has not been proven to make these edit wars take place. At any rate, I am seeking constructive improvement of the template. I disagree that the template encourages others to add their names, and I disagree that the second point is useless (based apparently on a feeling you have). It seems like the deletion argument is nearly totally a baseless assertion that sweeps away the good faith of people who take special care of particular articles because of high interest and willingness to assist other editors. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well not exactly. I think it's fair to say that only a few very emotional "keep" !voters (one of whom just went into a tirade about an article I edited a few months ago) are expressing their "feelings." What has happened here is that editors have observed the template, considered the arguments that have been made, and overwhelmingly said that it should be deleted, based on their best judgment. Every single article talk page carrying this template has a notice that it is about to be deleted, and yet I don't see an army of thousands of "maintainers" coming here to defend it. Some "maintenance." Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is deletionist zeal sans examples/evidence truly "judgment" or is it just thoughtless wanton destruction of demonstrated good faith efforts? What I'm seeing with my lyin' eyes is people jumping to a wild conclusion about ownership which has very little basis in wiki-reality. As for whether maintainers are aware of this, note that the maintainers were not informed of this deletion debate in any automatic manner (I just left some comments on some maintainers' talk pages -- not the same thing). Maintenance of an article does not construe the maintainer visiting the talk page every day to see a thin sentence about the deletion discussion above the Maintained template. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're "proving" something of no consequence whatsoever, and which does nothing to impact upon the concerns that people favoring deletion have, which is that it sends a message of article ownership. Two editors owning an article can be considerably worse than one. I don't see that helping at all, and to claim that there's something about this current template that somehow discourages people from adding their names, that's just simply ridiculous. It is plainly worded to allow more than one editor to make such a claim.
Let's examine that for a moment. In an article there are 14 editors on this template. I'm a new editor. I would view that as a message that there is a "clique" of editors who have control over the article. The evidence for that? My own lying eyes. Coretheapple (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you are admitting there is no actual evidence of misuse? Also, I will note that you are appearing to apply your feelings of what the template is about rather than what it is actually about -- helping other editors. To be blunt, I think "lying eyes" invalidates a 'delete' vote as it is an argument without substance. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm "admitting" is that this template is an "announcement of ownership" and therefore needs to be deleted, a view shared by an overwhelming consensus of the editors who have expressed a view on this template here. My lying eyes also see how desperate the supporters of this template have become, judging by some of the shrill rants, personal attacks, harassment of !voters and meaningless "statistics" I've seen deployed here. Coretheapple (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shrillness in the defense of a one of the pillars of the Wikipedia is no vice. Besides, the 'Keep' voters are up against 'Delete' voters who have an awful lot of 'judgment' but no evidence by your admission. Heck, some of us 'Keep' voters (and one 'Delete' voter) are also trying to find a reasonable compromise. Where are the other 'Delete' voters in finding a compromise? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen shrillness in defence of article ownership and in mischaracterizing the opposition to this template, neither of which, to the best of my knowledge, is one of the five pillars. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody on this entire page has sought to defend article ownership. Nobody. Period. In absolute cosmological terms. The template in question has only been construed to be about that by some, even though any simple reading of it does not suggest that, and barely any evidence has been presented to show that ownership is the outcome of its use. As far as characterizing the opposition to the template, I stand by the words I've used thus far, as I believe them to be dead-on accurate. I also see a confusing position about the pillars of the Wikipedia, so I won't comment on that aspect of your response. But if you want to deny that WP:AGF is one of them, be my guest. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not evidence. All FAs and GAs have more templates than typical articles because they've been edited more. To support your claim that adding the template improves the article, you'd have to show the quality trajectory of a large group of articles before and after the template. It's far easier to posit that FAs and GAs attract more skilled editors, who are more likely to know how to add templates, to care about the talk page (which is a pointless wasteland in so many articles), and to claim ownership of a page. -Sigeng (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(The number of Ks is less now because I removed the templates with inactive editors.)
(These numbers exceed the number of articles because they were counted for each article they had posted a maintained template.)
So there you have it. A small sample to be sure, but it confirms my observation from earlier. Most importantly, the number of FAs & GAs which these maintaining editors is extraordinary. (Look at the GA & FA links above to see why.) We cannot say that putting a "maintained by" template causes the articles to achieve such quality, but it certainly indicates that editors who post the template work hard to maintain quality. Give them their due, and keep the template. – S. Rich (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
—ATinySliver/ATalkPage 01:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(The number of Ds is less now because I removed the templates with inactive editors.)
(These numbers exceed the number of articles because they were counted for each article they had posted a maintained template.)
Overall in Wikipedia less that 0.01% of the articles reach Featured status. That so many editors would work for this accomplishment is a tribute to them. And even they did not strive themselves for the particular FA or GA accomplishment, the template serves to notify other contributors of their willingness to cooperate and assist in keeping the quality of the articles at a high level. When we have 30 to 50 percent of these maintained articles in such a status, there is little likelyhood of misuse because of the template. – S. Rich (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What your statistics show is that, at the time of this nomination, over one-third of the editors who were named in this template were no longer active. While you have now cleaned them up, there is no guarantee that anyone will do so again in the future, when the template is not under this level of scrutiny. Something that is wrong ~33% of the time cannot be relied upon, and is this of no benefit to the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These statistics prove only one thing: that there are a lot of really good articles in which editors have effectively declared ownership. If you wish to take up space in this discussion with more evidence of all the really great articles that are beset by this template and from which they need to be removed, you have the floor. Coretheapple (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The statistics prove there are a lot of really good articles where editors have added their name to a template that says doing so does not imply ownership and they "are available to help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article". We keep seeing the allegations that editors adding their names to the template actually have ulterior motives, yet no one who claims this has actually brought evidence showing the presence of this template actually turns editors into article-owning ogres. So far, pretty much every editor saying "Delete" has been doing so by applying their own personal version of WP:CRYSTAL. Until evidence showing article ownership due to the template is presented, crystal ball-like "assumes facts not in evidence" claims are all the "Delete!" !voters really have. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All these calls for "evidence" and statistics are tiresome. It is unquantifiable whether this template has contributed to Wikipedia in a positive or negative manner, and there are quite likely cases where full-blown ownership of articles has actually improved them. What is self evident though, is that to put your stamp on an article as a self-appointed "expert" or arbiter is an act of ownership, something that goes against the very ethos of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a fun bit of evidence of misuse though! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that allowing ownership by a select few experienced, informed, motivated, active editors would improve the owned articles; but in the long run, it leads to abuses; thus we created WP:OWN. All this "evidence" does nothing to address the fundamental and critical flaw in this template; it runs counter to WP policy.
In the few times and places where ownership is "needed", there's always WP:IAR; just go ahead perform the duties of a responsible steward for an article, correcting any editors that don't follow your vision, without adding a vague template that serves no purpose other than scaring away newbies with the false implication that there is some policy of sanctioned official ownership. In fact, you'd probably manage to do more good by not adding the template, keeping your semi-ownership less obvious. We all know borderline ownership goes on all the time anyway, generally for the good of WP. Deleting the template wouldn't change anything, except avoid its implied undermining of WP:OWN, which we need to keep as strong as possible to check the eventual abuses of this "maintaining" activity. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you or anyone identify one "newbie" who was scared away from editing an article because of this template? I'd like to see a link to a discussion where someone suggested they were afraid to edit an article because of the template. The only template that has truly scared me away from editing something is the one that accompanies the Scientology project. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No such evidence is possible, of course. I'm merely giving the template the benefit of doubt, assuming the template has such an effect on newbies; some might call that a good thing. To me, its use only raises a red flag, causing me to be suspicious of the "manager's" efforts, producing the opposite of the intended effect. (If someone were to propose replacing this template with a non-hypocritical one stating "Warning: possible ownership issue", I'd be in favor of that.) --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@A D Monroe III: OWN was created 24 Sep 2003. Maintained was created >2 years later on 3 Jan 2006. The two have coincided (more or less) in harmony for many years. Again, I ask if OWN been a problem with those users who post the template? I think not. What we have is a number of deletionists who simply don't like the template. (I say "simply" because they cannot show abuse.) Keeping the template is a freedom of choice issue, so let freedom prevail as it clearly benefits WP via the encouragement of GA & FA.) We have the template posted on hundreds of talk pages – posted by responsible editors. Anyone who does not like the template is free to not use it. But no one, so far, has shown that the template is being abused. – S. Rich (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Things change. The Wikipedia I joined 10 years ago is quite different from the one now. Then, Wikipedia was mostly an evolving experiment; now, our rules and guidelines are taken more seriously. Saying anything that's old must be fine now isn't in keeping with that continual change. Deleting this template is.
It's hardly fair, or accurate, to label anyone for deleting this template a "deletionist".
"Clearly benefits" is weaselly and akin to WP:OR. As I acknowledged, Ownership may have short term benefits, as long as abuses are checked by WP:OWN. This template, however, doesn't demonstrate those benefits. It doesn't demonstrate anything that can't be better served by normal established talk page procedures. It does, however, undermine OWN.
Editors cannot be "free" to undermine policy.
Arguing over a few supposed specific abuses would be pointless; I'm not doing that. I'm basing my stance purely on the only actual evidence: the template itself vs. OWN. The template loses.
--A D Monroe III (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break 4
[edit]
I like this new wording; more people should comment on this, especially those with delete votes on this current discussion.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 05:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in full agreement, with the proviso: this would take time and, as such, there will be an interim period. What do we do with the template? Keep it intact? Keep it with the proposed changes? Delete it? Something more timely is required. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 05:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually some very good thinking; I think many of those ideas would be very helpful, and yeah, a definite improvement over this general template. Perhaps another use of the template that could be made into a specific one is for pages that are marked because a user has substantial knowledge and perhaps also education that may allow them to explain parts of the article, update it, provide further references or primary sources upon request, or (in the case of technical subjects) even just edit the article.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 05:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Srich32977 for collecting some actual data and YBG for thoughtful suggestions. IMO one of the benefits of the existing template is that it unobtrusively admits multiple use cases, but the most critical aspect is that it's present at the discretion of the maintainer. The proposed replacement system of multi-pinging the top editors of an article loses that benefit. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very good ideas. 'h' is immediately doable. re: 'a', the template could be easily renamed by move, with a bot going around to update every instance where it's used. I'm not opposed to removing any suggestion of page ownership, which is what the template is not about. I may be even be open to 'h' replacing this template if it also includes the option of the editor saying they not only have access to resources, but also have special familiarity with the subject (e.g., I was born/raised and have lived most of my life in Louisville, Kentucky, and I've done nearly 2,000 edits to the article, so I have the ((maintained)) template with my name on its talk page). I think of the current template and the potential 'h' as an article's special help center. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am encouraged that my suggestions have elicited favorable responses from a number of retentionists. I would appreciate feedback from my fellow deletionists as I ponder additional comments, particularly in response to questions about implementation and transition. YBG (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YBG, I think your ideas are good. The goal, which you have accomplished, is to eliminate the "self-selection" element that bothers a lot of people. However, the way to go about doing that is to delete this template and to create a new one that achieves those goals. Coretheapple (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the YBG suggestions again, and I like them even more. That way, one is providing useful information to editors (ways through paywalls, for instance; I could recommend the NYPL website to NYC residents, to take advantage of that little-appreciated goldmine). The list of editors generated in an article, likewise, can be useful. Now, I can see situations in which such a list might not be recommended (such as edit-warring or situations in which paid or COI editors have dominated an article). In such a situation, one can simply not have the template there. The documentation, to eliminate edit warring, should specifically state that the template is only to be used in situations in which editors agree, and that if even one editor disagrees, they are to be removed. Or, I suppose, one can eliminate that feature (the list of most prolific contributors). Anyway, it's a good start for discussion once this template is deleted, as it removes the aspect of editors appointing themselves maintainers of an article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Self selection"? That is a complete misrepresentation. It's called volunteering. Which is what we all are as editors and we are supposed to do. Putting ones name in the template equates putting your name on an additional sign-up sheet, saying you are willing to help out over and above the usual if needed. That's it. I still fail to understand why this is so hard for the delete !voters to grasp. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. With the brutal assault on the wiki-pillar WP:AGF, some delete voters add insult to injury with their likewise brutal attack on the venerable, air-tight essay WP:VOLUNTEER. And that's on top of the lack of examples/evidence. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me more like a "brutal assault" on common sense. Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no "brutal assault" on AGF, Stevie. AGF refers to actual editors, not concerns about things that have gone wrong in the past and could go wrong in the future. Likewise, there has been no "brutal attack" on VOLUNTEER. You don't get to volunteer to be am official POV-warrior, BLP-abuser, NEWBIE-biter, and so on. That you resort to such ludicrous exaggerations, along with your denial of examples/evidence, suggests to me that you and other keepers simply have no argument. Choor monster (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal and the arguments made in favor are largely a direct attack on WP:AGF, pure and simple. Your arguments here are part of that attack. You may want to read them back to yourself and see why. Further, again, there are no arguments for the delete side except concerns about someone asserting themselves to belong in the template on one page. The keep side has presented multiple bona fide arguments (read all of them, as I don't have to repeat things that are typed on this page) and have been amenable to compromise. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, you are just being frankly delusional, using hysterically exaggerated language, simply because you have no actual argument. OWNership is still unacceptable, even when done in good faith. Just like edit-warring over this Template is unacceptable, even when done in good faith. Choor monster (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the lovely personal attack. Anyway, I would say "delusion" is trying to delete a template because of a single negative episode with it, punishing all the other good, rules-following users of it, and anyone who may benefit from it. By the way, I don't like the poor quality of some articles here -- let's close down the entire Wikipedia because of that. It's the same kind of "logic". Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on, Stevietheman. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't solve the issue of the user possibly not responding. Even active users can become unable to keep up with it. Your bot solution can solve the problem of whether the user is active to any degree, but it can't make anyone respond or, you know, maintain the article as the template suggests they would. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 22:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we can't just rely on users to watchlist article talk pages. As Daniel Case said above, "I have been surprised to learn how many people here just set their preferences to "put every article I edit on my watchlist", ending up with thousands of articles/templates/project page/ on their watchlists, a number effectively doubled since most editors (properly IMO) set their preferences so that talk page edits show up on their watchlists. I know one guy who has edited so much this way that any attempt to open his 20,000+-article watchlist invariably causes whatever browser he's using, and sometimes the computer itself, to crash. So he just uses recent changes instead.In this situation it should hardly be a surprise that a new editor, or reader, posing a question on a low-traffic talk page may well feel themselves to be like the proverbial tree falling in a forest ... "Did anyone even notice? Did I actually edit? Do I even exist?" Having a contact person, when that person is active, is at least a slight improvement over that situation."--ɱ (talk · vbm) 17:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The comment that you have duplicated is irrelevant. We're talking about people who want to declare their maintainership of an article by using this template. It is quite reasonable to expect them to watchlist that article and its talk page. Kanguole 18:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm telling you that even if they watchlist the article, often they won't see talk page questions. That's why it's important for users to direct those enquiries to a user talk page, where they will be seen.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 18:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unfortunate that people who voice an interest in particular low-traffic articles are unable to take positive steps to notice changes to the article or questions on the talk page. If they have so many pages on their watchlist that it crashes their browser, shouldn't they take steps to prune the watchlist? Or at the very least, use the feature that allows an editor to use related changes to monitor their maintained pages. (It is described in the template documentation, and while I don't quite see how it all works, I rather suspect that someone should be able to create a page of low-trafficked pages in which one has an interest. Even with a huge number of low-trafficked articles, new questions should be readily visible).
Anyway, I maintain that we should encourage most discussion in the appropriate public places -- in the article talk page or in project talk pages -- and all the more so because there are ways for experienced editors who are interested in the quality of such articles to overcome the problems of watchlist overload.
I'm not opposed to suggesting that newbies ((ping)) specific users, particularly if they don't receive a response. I've done the same thing myself in rarely edited articles. That's part of the reason I'd like to see an auto-generated list of the most frequent / most recent editors. 05:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I personally use this template on a single WikiProject page (because I made the page complicated). Yes, they could just use the talk page, but recently I've had difficulty checking my watchlist even once a day, and a talk page edit could easily be lost and go unnoticed. Leaving a message on my user talk page would at least send me an email notification that I have a message. And checking the page history (even if I'm the main editor) is an overwehlming mess, while the template is a big shiny button to a user talk page. If there is something inherently wrong with this template, please put your money where your mouth is, because I've seen nothing but good things come from this template. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a victim mentality-based argument. (OMG, even my saying so is victim blaming!) We are being asked to presume that editors who !voted to delete were once scared away from certain articles because of the template. (And by extension we might presume that those who did not comment on this page were scared away from even !voting.) Well, thank goodness they've found the gumption to do something about their suffering. But, seriously, I've seen the delete !voters on other talk pages and I really don't think that victimization is a factor for any of the commentators. – S. Rich (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read my comment. There's nothing to the effect of anyone actually being a victim of any kind (but thanks for putting the word in my mouth, I really appreciate it). All I said was that it isn't exactly conducive to getting new people involved with the project because it's basically a big sign that says, "EXPERIENCED EDITORS ONLY (but because the rules tell us we can't really enforce that, everyone's allowed to chime in, while we're allowed to steamroll their well-meaning edits)". We worry about making sure editors stick around and this is a good way to ensure a lock-out of potentially valuable contributors. It's basically the sign on the front door of an exclusive treehouse where there may or may not be room for anyone new. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 00:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zeke, you got me to thinking some more. Those editors who see intimidation and ownership as elements of the template (despite its explicit wording) are pushing against the concept of [BOLD. (They argue that we can solve some vague problem by removing what they see as a source of the problem, when boldness is the better course of action.) With this in mind, I suggest we revise the bottom line of the template to read "Please BE BOLD and help improve this article, The editors who posted this message do not OWN the page. All editors, especially you, are encouraged to contribute." (Hopefully this will be enough to get their attention.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC) (And I don't want to forget that User:ATinySliver came up with the original idea that BOLD was an important concept to incorporate into the template.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why I voted weak delete: I do see the value of something like this, but the current presentation is too OWNish for me to handle (and alternatives have been proposed that I think are superior to a template). That being said, you have a good idea right there. At the very least, a rewording is in order to emphasize that newbs are welcome and even encouraged to assist the established experts. Again, there have been some more technical proposals that I think would surpass this template in usefulness, but either way, I don't think the template should be allowed to exist as is. I especially like the idea that someone brought up that only one or a few editors may have access to a resource that would be beneficial to the article in question; notices like that are more specific and, in my mind, better. But the least we can do is reword the template. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that its widespread usage wouldn't be an issue if it got deleted because a bot could easily remove the useless coding from each page that uses it in less than a day. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give examples of article content-related subject talk discussions happening on user talk as a result of the template's use? A single example will suffice. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trawling through the histories of user talk pages for such postings is very difficult, which is part of the point of this objection. However, users Calvin999, Maky, Peacemaker67 and Ɱ have said in this discussion that they have received such posts on their talk pages as a result of this template. This is hardly surprising for a template listing users from whom to seek answers regarding the article, with links to their talk pages. Kanguole 13:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An alternate proposal
[edit]

Based on the comments I and others have received, and for the interim period while YBG's suggestions are worked out and implemented, may I officially offer as an alternative the following changes to the wording of the existing template (subject to tweaking, of course). —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC) User:ATinySliver/Template:Maintained[reply]

You call this an alternate proposal? With all due respect, it accomplishes nothing and bears no resemblance whatsoever to YBG's proposal. Same problem: editors anointing themselves. Same ownership issue. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL!!! With all due respect, I do call a good-faith effort at an interim solution "an alternate proposal". What do you call it? —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 21:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ATinySliver: Wouldn't it make more sense to transclude this here from your subpage so any updates you make are reflected here and to keep the code out of the way of the discussion? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up! —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ATinySliver:I call it not addressing any of the issues raised by the vast majority of commenters on this template, which, to boil it down, is that this template is has WP:OWN issues. Tweaking the wording doesn't do anything to address those serious concerns, irregardless of whether this proposal is in "good faith" or not. In similar "good faith" I can very accurately describe it as unhelpful. Coretheapple (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then a downvote with a brief explanation of why you believe it isn't helpful would have sufficed; "You call this an alternate proposal?" appears to attack me for trying to find an interim solution to a problematic template that, if I'm reading all the above correctly, has yet to garner a consensus to keep or delete. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I just did not see anything very "alternate" about your alternate proposal, that's all. YBG made some good points that do address the concerns that have been raised, and we should build on that, not tweak this template. That's a nonstarter. And I totally disagree with you re consensus, which is clearly and overwhelmingly for deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, by broadening the wording, it actually exacerbates the problem that the vast majority of commenters on this template have noted. That's why it sort of left me scratching my head trying to figure out how this could be considered a compromise. Coretheapple (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One, if I'm looking for a consensus were it to come to me closing the nom—admittedly, something I've never done—I'd note the pile-ups on both sides, and the !votes that make assertions without backing them up. I see neither "clear" nor "overwhelming". Two, please explain how the wording "exacerbates the problem" by naming volunteers (as opposed to maintainers) while reminding everyone that they should not be afraid to contribute? If an individual editor demonstrates OWN issues anyway, it's up to the community to fix that individual issue, not delete a template and pretend that alone is a solution. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re your suggestions re wording: they make no difference at all, because they still have editors self-designating themselves as, effectively, "experts" that can be consulted over specific articles. That has WP:OWN written over it. You've broadened the template, really making things a lot worse, by adding "content." There is absolutely no difference whatsoever between those editors being "available" and "volunteering." It's functionally the same thing. As for consensus, there are at this time 36 editors favoring deletion and 15 favoring that it be kept, more than 2 to 1, which is overwhelming, with the deletes all raising very similar concerns regarding this template. Yes, I know, you want the closing administrator to disregard those concerns. Coretheapple (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, I know, you want the closing administrator to disregard those concerns." And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how AGF dies. I have never used the template. I never will use the template. I don't give a fuck what the result of this discussion is. I saw a contentious issue and offered an (admittedly) interim solution to a contentious issue. In driving me permanently from this discussion, you've ironically cored the apple. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 23:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I would suggest that we hat this proposal. It doesn't materially differ from the template and this discussion is rapidly becoming pointless. And by the way, if you agree with me that the "deletes" should not be discounted, then how can you doubt there is a consensus? Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If used per /doc, the current template's rendering in article space offers "help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article". Outside of article space, the /doc page says to use |artlcle=no, and so offer "help with questions about this page". Only after starting to write this post did I read the /doc closely enough to understand these details. My conclusion is that this alternate proposal makes a significant change to the template, a change likely to widen the gap between the retentionistas and the deletionistas. In the interest of trying to narrow that gap, I suggest that the alternate proposal be abandoned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YBG (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC) — Apologies for forgetting those tildes. I've added the correct time. YBG (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a large hunk of unproductive text, and someone really ought to hat this section. Coretheapple (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of editors have commented on the template, hatting this portion of the discussion is premature, to say the least (not to mention dismissive). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not want to see this template "improved" just to keep all current uses with a "new" meaning. If it's the same template, then it has the same problems; its current use is based on its current meaning. If this proposes a different template with a different meaning, then it should not automatically replace the existing one, with possible conflicting different uses. Replacement would have to be case-by-case basis, which it best served by delete of all and then manual one-by-one add of the new template. Please propose this separately, after this template is deleted. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing a major rewrite
[edit]

From the very beginning, this template has emphasized help with verification and sources. At some point, an alternate text was added (without WP:VER and WP:RS) for use on talk pages of non-articles. The current documentation includes a suggestion that a consistent format be used in a given article or project so that listed editors include similar information. Also, at some point, the text omitted the reference to maintaining the article and only stated that the listed editors are available for help with WP:VER and RS.

Proposal 1: Create a new template, named to emphasize sources, worded to continue emphasizing help with WP:VER and WP:RS.

Proposal 2: Document the new template to say it only belongs in article talk space

  • Plus this Proposal 2 (a): Delete use of the original template outside of article talk space.
  • or this Proposal 2 (b): Create another new template for use outside of article talk space.

Proposal 3: Add wording directing general questions to the talk page (or to a project talk page) (to encourage use of a more public forum)

Proposal 4: Expand the new template with parameters or subtemplates to help promote consistency:

  • A form to announce that the listed editor has access to particular offline/paywalled source(s)
  • A form to announce that the listed editor has verified the sources (or a subset of them) in the article (or certain sections) as of a particular date
  • Maybe additional forms depending on what is found in the existing uses of ((Maintained))

Proposal 5: Transform ((Maintained)) uses to the new template(s), using |p=unknown if needed for required parameters p.

  • Proposal 5 (a): After all have been transformed, delete the existing template
  • Proposal 5 (b): Ping all of the listed editors with |p=unknown parameters and ask them to fill in their part of the template
  • Proposal 5 (c): After a suitable interim period of months, de-list any listed editor who still has |p=unknown parameters.

I have specifically excluded listing editors except for either (a) announcing access to offline/paywalled sources or (b) announcing verification of some or all sources as of a particular date. Some retentionistas will object to this exclusion, and some deletionistas will object to any attempt to retain this template, but IMHO this exclusion is the one thing that has a possibility of attracting majority support in both groups.

All of this is doable in the near term, without the programming effort needed to implement multi-pinging. As you comment on these proposals, I would be particularly interested in knowing if this proposal has encouraged any of my fellow deletionistas to be willing to keep or replace the template as I have outlined here. YBG (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC) some modifications for clarity YBG (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth naming the template something such as ((Source verification assistance)). -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any template not naming specific editors is fine, but I think the time to do that would be after this template is deleted. Then it can be added back to relevant articles where required. Coretheapple (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear at this point that this is going to be closed as "no consensus". That said, I've made it clear and I've always been open to improving/replacing this or any template that has generated concerns, even if the concerns come from opinion and not hard evidence. The above plan looks like an honorable compromise. I continue to think there should be an option for those who have special familiarity with a subject to note that, in the sense that they are happy to help guide anyone. After all, even if one doesn't have resources in their personal library, they could still have the resourcefulness through subject familiarity to be able to locate resources and direct other editors to them. As for specifics, re: Proposal 2, it's possible to raise a warning or error if the template has been placed into the wrong space. Re: Proposal 3, I like that, but if there are any listed editors, it can also be suggested that instead of going to a listed editor's talk page, they can start a discussion on the article's talk page, and ping a listed editor from there. After all, a listed editor is inviting contact. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, it's pretty clear that you want it to be closed as a no consensus. But the overwhelming sentiment is running against you by 41 to 20, which is as a clear consensus as in any RfC or deletion discussion I've ever been involved in. Once it's deleted, we can discuss what to replace it with, if anything, and that replacement, if there is one, can be fastened to article talk pages on a case-by-case basis. Coretheapple (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. It's clear enough he'd like it to be closed as 'keep', but that isn't going to happen; I agree it looks like there's no consensus here. You really don't know that this in't up to numbers, it doesn't matter how many editors use bad-faith judgement and 'support per above' and similar arguments, that 41 vs 20 means nothing?--ɱ (talk · vbm) 20:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh of course. I'm perfectly aware of that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I use the template with the |article=no parameter, so I would support proposal 2 (b) if a new template kept the same meaning (if not the same wording). ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep on the template as it is, or with minor modification. The arguments for deletion put forward so far are neither consistent nor convincing, IMHO. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2015 (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.
[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) 21:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox TransLink (SEQ) bus station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Infobox bus station)), which contains all of the key fields. We don't need to list all station facilities; see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Alakzi (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2015 (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:James Bond film crew

[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) 04:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:James Bond film crew (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 11#Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe film crew and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 12#Template:Star Trek film crew

Incoherent groupings which do not aid navigation. These shouldn't be encouraged, the same way we do not have cast navboxes. Rob Sinden (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2015 (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:Zombi series

[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) 04:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zombi series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Substantial duplication. All links are included at ((Living Dead)) Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2015 (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.
Category