Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16

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]

• Support nom's solution per precedent —PC-XT+ 22:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• merge/delete Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 17 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.

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]

• Delete - What I said before! Parameters were previously added for compatability. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not overly convinced on deletion but it seems most of wha'ts in the bus station template is in the main infobox anyway.... –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 1 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.

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]

• Subst: and delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nom's solution per precedent —PC-XT+ 22:49, 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.

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]

• delete Frietjes (talk) 00:09, 24 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.

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]

• The standard for this industry has always been does three to four links. Why should this particular template have a different standard than other director/producer/writer types.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:32, 17 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]

• Delete - Per nominator - navbox creep. BollyJeff | talk
• delete, we don't need producer navboxes. Frietjes (talk) 00:10, 24 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.

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.

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]

• Delete - Per nom. All that info does not belong in an infobox. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:18, 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.

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]

• Replace and delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—per Andy. Imzadi 1979 → 02:51, 19 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.

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)

• Category:Maintained articles (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: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/December 2005 § Template:Maintained – No consensus Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 21/Template:Maintained – Kept Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 29 § Template:Maintained – No consensus

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]

• Delete, for the above reasons; and because the template can't be relied on: the editor listed by it for Ronald Reagan hasn't edited for over a year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a reason to delete the template from the page, not delete the template. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No; the impossibility of keeping such templates up to date is another reason to never use them; hence delete them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that were so, we might as well delete all our page maintenance templates. Laziness is not an excuse for misapplying policy. Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • A slippery-slope-fallacy argument, with a "laziness" straw-man-fallacy thrown in. Meanwhile the "maintainer" who placed the nominated template on Talk:16th-century philosophy hasn't edited for two and a half years, yet no-one has updated or removed it. It's a chocolate teapot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's funny; I don't see it there anymore. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please show where you have also removed the same editor's tag fro all the other talk pages where they added it, Oh, and tell us how many other departed editors still have tags on talk pages, like this one, from an editor who last edited in 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:21, 17 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]

• Delete. I don't see any great value in this template, but I do see potential ownership problems (whatever the template says). When people, especially newcomers, see editors named in the template they're inevitably going to see them as experts who are expected to be consulted. If you want to help others with a specific article, all you need to do is watchlist the talk page and jump in and help when anyone asks. You don't need to be named explicitly in a template. (And as Andy Mabbett suggests, people will surely waste time chasing up outdated templates.) Squinge (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " When people, especially newcomers, see editors named in the template they're inevitably going to see them as experts who are expected to be consulted." Do you have any evidence that this is what happens? As for the rest of your argument, see my keep vote below. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's just my opinion that that's how they'll see it, as it's certainly how I see it and apparently how a number of others see it too. Squinge (talk) 10:58, 17 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]

• Keep It's a good starting point for some editors, some of them new. If they have questions or concerns about an article, they have an individual editor to go to, rather than take a shot in the dark. In my experience, the template only "implies ownership" to those who have a habit of establishing ownership over articles, and the editor listed is a threat to them. If ownership becomes a problem with an editor listed in the template, it can be dealt with at the appropriate noticeboard. As a community, we are to take responsibility for how we edit or "maintain" an article and encourage editors to do the same. I fail to see how having editors taking responsibility and being a go-to person is a bad thing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How can it not imply page ownership? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the template specifically says, "This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute." Besides, templates are inanimate things and actions/ideations of ownership can only come from an editor. If an editor is signing up to be a page maintainer for the wrong reasons, that will become clear and the problem dealt with appropriately. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a comment underneath a comment by User:Winkelvi. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Getting point-y won't work. Especially when you either don't have a point (actually, you do but if you wore a hat no one would notice) or didn't make it. Or both. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please understand what WP:POINT says - and means - and do not misapply it, as you have done here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:10, 16 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]

• Keep Per WV. Just because a few people misuse the template does not mean it should be deleted. Handle the troublemakers instead. I'm the primary editor on many lemur articles, and this template helps readers and newer editors get in touch with me when they have questions about sources or want information about other lemurs I haven't had time to write about. The article Small-toothed sportive lemur wouldn't be a FA if it wasn't for this template. Someone apparently saw this template on another lemur article, wrote to me to inquire about this obscure lemur, and that gave me a reason to write up the article. This template is not only applicable to articles primarily written (and fully developed) by a single writer, but can also be used by multiple individuals on collaborative projects. Let's stop focusing on the negative and blaming the template for bad editor behavior. The text of the template quite clearly states its purpose. – Maky ^« talk » 16:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Just because the template says that it isn't meant to assert article ownership doesn't mean that the real purpose of the template isn't to assert article ownership. Just calling the dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. The purpose of the template, no matter what it says, is article ownership. Get rid of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, like the nominator, your delete rationale is "I don't believe this template really means what it says"? I don't think that's a valid rationale for deleting anything.

    Especially when you make this assertion without any evidence that suggests this actually happens. When, in this or any future TfD on this one, I see someone come in with a stack of diffs purporting to show ownership behavior by editors who have placed this template, then, I'll be open to talking about whether it's credible. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I understand the intent behind this template. Let's say someone had done a lot of work putting together resources for a rewrite of Onychophora and stuck this template on its talk page (note: this is a hypothetical example; it's not in use there). Then, later on, an editor looking to blue link the peripatopsid genus Kumbadjena might know to shoot that editor a message to see what sources are out there, or even get easier access to paywalled stuff. Yay, the encyclopedia wins! But I bet that's not the way it's mostly being used. Despite The Treachery of Disclaimers it looks like a page ownership notice. People who want to communicate their willingness to assist with editing and sourcing have Talk pages and Wikiprojects to do just that, and don't require a template to do so. This, in contrast, adds little benefit at a great deal of potential cost. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said below, "people who come in" are not like "people who've been editing Wikipedia obsessively for years." I have dealt with people like that, believe me. You'd be surprised what they don't know ... and reminded that just because they don't know how to do things on Wikipedia does not make their concerns less valuable. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as unnecessary and an invitation for page ownership. Reading subsequent comments has only strengthened my position. As observed below, this template self-elevates some editors above others. No "proof" is necessary about the flaws of such an obviously defective template. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Strengthened. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone, to your knowledge, accepted this invitation? Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Has any editor, to your knowledge, ever frantically badgered people in a deletion discussion as you are doing here? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 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]

• Delete this OWN bait. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How is "delete this OWN bait" even a valid reason?  — ₳aron 11:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Because its implications undoubtedly lead to a violation of Wikipedia policy, just as everyone else here has said. Keep up. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 16:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, now, Chase. Practise what you preach and demand, and be civil.  — ₳aron 19:42, 19 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]

• Delete as well-intentioned but inherently unworkable and problematic. ElKevbo (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, evidence of this? Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm listed as a "maintainer" of this article despite (a) having not edited it in years and (b) never having volunteered to be included as a "maintainer" of any article. I think I'm listed on a few other articles although I detest this template. ElKevbo (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed your name. Will do so again when I see it as I cull through the articles. – S. Rich (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sure there were good intentions around this, but if it is being used to assert any type of ownership over articles then it needs to go. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if it is being used to assert any type of ownership over articles then it needs to go" Exactly. In the frenzy to get the pitchforks and torches out, no one has apparently bothered to find any evidence that this problem everyone thinks is occurring actually is occurring. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I used this on an article I've worked on for a while, but I see no problem with having editors refer to the article history to contact someone. There's no need to add yet another tag to an article talk page. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:42, 16 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]

• Question what about a rename and adjusting the display text? As previously mentioned, this template can help editors find someone to provide insight for an article, even if its use is flawed. I would simply have the text read "The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article". Rather than "maintained", I'd probably use something like "Ask user". Just a thought. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's so much of a fundamental change, why not just make a new template for that purpose? I don't support this proposal however as talk pages are cluttered enough and users can once again use the article history or the article talk page for help. In fact users should always post on the article talk page for help because any "maintainer" should have it on their watchlist. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's correct. If an editor has a question about an article, he or she should post it on the talk page. If the "maintainer" is really maintaining, he or she will answer. Or someone with a different perspective will answer. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OWN and per nom and other delete !votes. This really does look like ownership, no matter what the template says. Someone who needs help editing a page should ask for WP:HELP or, as EoRdE6 says, check the article talk page and history for major contributors. Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, has it resulted in actual problems with page ownership? We do not delete things because of purely theoretical issues. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It gives too much of an ownership issue here. Besides those reasons listed above, I must also add that anyone should be able to help out with issues, not just one person. It is not consensus if we all ask what one person thinks, it is just that person's opinion, not our own. I would say that in this way, the template could just be hampering discussions. -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I must also add that anyone should be able to help out with issues, not just one person" And anyone does. As much as I've had the reasons in mind that I gave in my keep !vote, putting this template on talk pages of most articles that I keep on my (rather small by most peoples' standards) watchlist has not made me the absolute be-all and end-all Godhead Fount of All Knowledge on the subject. Plenty of times people, both regular editors and non-editing readers, have completely bypassed the notice and just done whatever they would do without it, even when it would have been easier to just contact me (which is, before you start getting clever, not a reason to delete it. The fact that it does not always work as it should does not by a long shot mean we shouldn't have it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above arguments. If you do something, saying you aren't doing it doesn't actually mean you aren't doing it. Clearly implying ownership doesn't go away simply by insisting it isn't really there. That the template includes it at all is telling - it means that the editors who have worked on it knew that it implies what it clearly implies. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:17, 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]

• Delete - while the intention is good, and the template appears to be transcluded into over 4,700 talk pages, I have serious misgivings about this template as it is structured. A rewording would be such a significant change, I would suggest deletion of the current template or potentially redirection to a relevant replacement. The template as it stands provides, at best, implied expertise in the subject; but the /doc for the template makes clear that the only check on expertise is the user self-rating their "strong knowledge of the topic or its sources". If replaced, it would be more accurate to have a template state that the "below listed persons have indicated an interest in the subject" as that's all it can truly be relied upon to provide. The named persons may or may not have any real expertise, the users contacting them would need to determine that for themselves after contacting them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Undermines the philosophy behind a wiki, in my opinion, despite stating it does not imply ownership. It still feels that way, as a new user I'd feel like inclined to contact these people rather than be bold and make changes myself. Furthermore, you'd have to maintain this list of active contributors, as people may come and go from the project. If you want to find the most active contributors, you cna simply check the page history or use a tool. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:14, 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]

• Strongest keep possible: "if an editor truly needs assistance they can use the page history". Ah, yes, the sound of another Wikipedian who wants to keep as many prospective new editors out of the treehouse as possible so they can keep on doing things the way they've been doing them. That's what this amounts to, regardless of intent.

  Actually, I don't see this template directed at other editors so much as readers who come across it and want to get in touch with someone at Wikipedia who is willing to take responsibility for an article and perhaps address some issue with it that really needs to be addressed that we might not otherwise have known about.

  So casual readers should be expected to be like all those supersmart Wikipedians and look at the history and figure out, from that, who they should get in touch with? Some people don't even realize history pages exist, and even if they do they're not the easiest things for a non-Wikipedian to make head or tail of to understand even the basics of, much less figure out who they might get in touch with. Yes, I realize that there are readers who don't know talk pages exist, too, but on balance I think more non-editing readers know of them than know of (or know how to decipher) history pages. Having this to give them someone to talk to does a lot more for Wikipedia than the folks voting delete realize. I have had people get int touch with me this way.

  Without it, you'll have a lot more well-intended editing that our bot-like RC patrollers, safely ensconced behind Twinkle or Huggle or Snuggle or whatever this season's favorite toy is, will label as disruptive and get blocked, and a lot more people who think that Wikipedia is run by some secretive bunch of poopyheads who care more about keeping the hoi polloi out than they do about keeping articles current or accurate or unbiased.

  This template is not about ownership ... it's about transparency, people. Something we supposedly value. There's a good reason this survived the previous TfDs. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Daniel Case: you don't need to reply to every single vote going against your opinion, especially with useless comments like "See above." That person posted half an hour after you, and if I know anything about Frietjes I would say he probably read the votes and the arguments before commenting (like any good contributor will do.) FYI, Frietjes is a woman; please use "she" when referring to her. I made the same mistake. Once. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:54, 17 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]

• • Also as I said above, say a new user can't figure out, or doesn't want to use the page history to find assistance. In that case the user should simply post their question on the article talk page, any good "maintainer" will have this on their watchlist, and they should get a timely response. Any non subject related questions (about technicalities or etiquette) should be directed to the WP:Teahouse for an even faster response. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:16, 16 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]

• Comment I think in the interests of full disclosure, you should put in the links to the three previous TfDs this template has survived. As well as the now-closed spurious AN/I thread that started this, a thread which demonstrated beyond all doubt. that the problem was with one editor, not the template. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two no consensuses 7-ish years ago? Alot has changed in seven years. If anyone is interested (though these shouldn't really affect votes) the links can be found on the template's talk page. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is common practice when starting XfDs to put links to any previous nominations of the same page in the nomnination, so interested parties can see how these same arguments played out in the past, regardless of the result or how old. Telling people they can go to the talk page does not suffice. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "It is common practice...". Bullshit. And your hectoring posts here have gone past the point of being tendentious. Please desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 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]

• Delete: as per others above. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, yet another thing to keep up-to-date; the recent edit history is a better indicator of editors interested in maintaining. Frietjes (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Daniel Case (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am undecided on this question, but the reason I'm considering deletion is not the reason stated in the nomination. I checked several instances of this template on articles in my areas of interest, and some of them are out of date and list inactive or rarely-active users as maintainers. There certainly are some people who find the talk but not the history page, and for those cases an unresponsive maintainer is worse than no maintainer at all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I left a notice about this TfD at WT:MED, since this template appears to be used fairly often in biomedical articles, and these topics are particularly likely to attract good-faith editors who need some guidance. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:47, 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]

• Keep. OK, I'm the only one here who actually solicited an opinion from Daniel and didn't get one ;) But I'm going to come down on the keep side of this, though it creates a who-maintains-the-maintainers problem, on the basis that the primary argument for deletion has yet to be supported by any evidence that it's actually a problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:36, 17 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]

• Delete I agree with the nom and others above that the template, WP:OWN notwithstanding, seems to encourage (or at least condone) page ownership. Miniapolis 22:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My biggest take-away here is that Daniel Case is in favor of keeping this. Seriously Daniel, we get it. Rest your fingers a bit. — Ched :  ?  23:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have placed this tag on the talk page of each article which I brought to GA. It indicates that there are real humans behind our articles. So that when this person publishes that all the articles are edited anonymously we know that he does not know how Wikipedia works. We should be working towards greater transparency rather than less transparency. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - despite what the template itself says, of course it promotes the idea of ownership. This is just an cattle ear-tag for articles. It's self-appointment to a place of privilege or "expertise", above others and that's not how Wikipedia works. The template is redundant (anyway) to a "stickied" talk page thread (one with a {{Do not archive until}} tag) that would actually encourage collegial back-and-forth, rather than a simple declaration as to whose permission you require to edit. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:16, 17 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]

• Strong Delete This template clearly promotes article ownership and brags who the owner is. No template should accept an editor's name as a parameter for the purpose of displaying it, centered in a bold font. Such a template, even if it causes no article ownership, clearly has the potential to cause the editor to be proud to see their name in lights in this way. No "evidence" is necessary, just look at what the template does. Prhartcom (talk) 05:06, 17 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]

• Here's a thought: How about before all the "Delete" !votes are tallied, those claiming the template has only caused article ownership by editors and hardship on the community actually show diffs of where this has actually occurred. Or is that too radical a thought? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To sum up this so far, two extremely vocal keep votes who insist and refuting everyone else's votes, 2 well thought out keeps, and 19 delete votes. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 07:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see where anyone has claimed it "only caused article ownership by editors and hardship on the community". Squinge (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winkelvi, I became aware of the unnecessary drama caused by this template, and its potential for abuse, when you edit-warred over including yourself in a "maintained" template in a contentious article a couple of months ago. When I saw that I raised the issue of deletion on the template talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposed metric does not take into account the deterrent effect the template may have on other editors; there are no diffs created when the template discourages editors from objecting to their edits being removed by the expert-editor identified in the template. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:03, 18 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]

• Delete – We want editors to discuss an article on the article talk page, not user talk pages. If they post on the article talk page, they will get the attention of interested editors. Kanguole 09:07, 17 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]

• Delete per the above comments about ownership --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have had times where an inexperienced or experienced editors who are not involved with the Wikiproject or maintaining of the article come to me with issues or comments regarding the article they have come across. I don't think it does imply WP:OWN. I think it's good because it shows that there is a person or people who regularly maintain and keep a look out for the article and others can see that, so they can go that editor or those editors are ask them something about it, whatever it may be, such as clarification purposes, ideas for improvement etc. As with most disputes in life, the people who are voting delete are talking about the minority of people who abuse it (I've actually never seen someone use this template and implicate OWN). The vast majority of us who do use it, don't abuse it, and put it there to show that there is a person or people who maintain the article (usually because we have promoted it to GA/FL/FA) by keeping it presentable, updated with new info and away from the hands of disruptive IP editors and vandals, and for anyone who wishes to make a comment, propose an edit or ask advice.  — ₳aron 11:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Calvin999: I've just scanned the last year's worth of archives of your talk apge, and can't see where anyone has contacted you as a result of this template. No doubt I've overlooked the relevant sections, so please can you post links? No need for a lot, just, say, the last three or four? Cheers, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going through all of my archives, and I don't always keep posts on my talk page either. I have had people come to my talk as a referral from the maintain template on some articles I have it on though.  — ₳aron 14:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, that's pity. I was hoping for evidence, instead of just anecdote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, here you go, per my other recent edits discussing this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you. That is indeed excellent evidence, However, it is evidence that talk pages are the place for people - even new editors - to discuss articles. It is not evidence that the nominated template has any usefulness. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • • Sarcasm not needed or appreciated. If you want to search my archives, be my guest. Me, I'm too busy reviewing GANs and nominating DYKs, FLCs and FACs in order to improve Wikipedia.  — ₳aron 19:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sarcasm is indeed not needed nor appreciated; and there is plenty in this "discussion", but not from me. I genuinely would like to see examples of the claimed benefit of this template (just as I have provided evidence, not anecdote, to support my views), but none whatsoever has been provided. I'm therefore becoming sceptical about such claims. Meanwhile I too, am busy working to improve Wikipedia in a number of ways, and am happy that my record of doing so stands up to scrutiny, so I'm not sure what your final comment is intended to show. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think it's a good idea, esp. for new users. It says no ownership so the first time I saw it, I took it as, hey, this person contributes a lot, if you have any questions regarding the page and no one is answering the talk page, go to them directly, it's your best bet. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Category:Maintained articles and the "transclusion count" here, show we have 4,755 editors [3,696 instances where those] who have worked on particular articles and thought enough of the topics to identify their interest in the articles. (This is an overwhelming !vote count in favor of keeping the template.) Moreover this deletion proposal is the wrong forum for discussion of the template. As WP:OWN is a WP policy and as the policy specifically uses the template the discussion about the template belongs on the policy talk page. A notice of this discussion has been posted on the Policy talk page. (And editors who cite OWN as a rationale for deletion seem to ignore the fact that the template is part of the policy.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)15:50, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 2)That's not really an argument. I could go to any TfD and say well it's used 7,000 times so that's 7,000 keep votes. No, this is a conversation about whether the template is good for the Wikipedia, not how many times it has been used. Also, this discussion is not about WP:OWN. That policy is fine, this template however isn't. This is a TfD to delete the template, and if it succeeds the one line added to WP:OWN by the templates creator asking people to use it, can be removed from it. Easy. So instead of arguing wrong forum or high transclusion number, lets talk about how it lines up with Wikipedia's policies, whether it is at all useful, why users can't just post questions on the article talk page, and whether this template may be causing harm to the encyclopaedia. The template isn't part of the policy as much as someone added it their to advertise the template and increase usage. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only does 4,755 transclusions not amount to 4,755 editors (because many have used it more than once), but we have over 4.7 million article talk pages that do not use it. Shall we call each of them "votes" to delete? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy is making an argument from silence (millions of articles don't have the template, therefore editors are not interested in "maintaining" the articles, therefore the non-use of the template is an argument to dump it.). But we actually need and want editors to maintain articles. This template serves to encourage such involvement. Next, those who say "The template implies OWNERSHIP" actually see the implication all by themselves. How so? – the template explicitly warns against such an implication. Moreover, if those editors (who have posted the template) were exercising ownership, there would be an editor behavior problem on their part. Is there any evidence that the template is being misused, much less as an exercise in ownership? Absolutely not! Editors read-in the implication of ownership should AGF and let the template stand. If they find templates posted by editors who are inactive, then they can remove the template. (Doing so would demonstrate that the "maintaining" editor really isn't exercising "ownership".) – S. Rich (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, Andy is simply using Reductio ad absurdum in order to refute the "4,755 keep votes" argument. Squinge (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I got caught up in the one fact and did not clearly present the more compelling argument. I'll try again. The real problem with those who say "implies OWN" is their own assumed implication goes against the fundamental principle that we Assume Good Faith. They see the template (which was placed in good faith) and assume the opposite. E.g., that the editor who worked on the article wants to "own" the article. Sadly this "implies OWN" argument actually undermines the assumption, the fundamental principle of AGF, that we should be following. – S. Rich (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not necessarily; use of the template can imply ownership to other editors even if they assume that the editor who put up the template was acting in good faith. Indeed, usually editors displaying ownership tendencies are acting in good faith in hopes of maintaining article quality (as WP:OWN says, "Often, editors accused of ownership may not even realize it"). But acting in good faith (and rightly assuming the editor is doing so) does not mean that ownership tendencies are nonexistent or not problematic; conscious intent to own an article is not required to act in ways that violate WP:OWN. Thus, WP:AFG does not forbid the view that using this template creates WP:OWN issues. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • (edit conflict) Then, again, the problem is with the editor who assumes OWN even though the template says, in effect, "do not assume this template implies OWN". – S. Rich (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • By analogy, someone says "You're a shithead. (Do not assume this is a personal attack.)" Do you believe the disclaimer or your intuition? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC) My own disclaimer: I truthfully do not, in any way, mean to use this analogy as a passive-aggressive personal attack, which in hindsight I realized might appear that way. My apologies if it came across as such. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:58, 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]

• Delete. I see a few problems with this template: First, It does imply ownership, despite any warnings from the template saying otherwise. It's a sign that says "I want to be in control of this article" and in my personal experience, discourages editing from other people. Secondly, It's not maintained (no pun intended). Oftentimes you'll find this template on a talk page and the editor who placed it is no longer active. At that point, any notion of helpfulness is out the door. If someone is active in the editing of the page, the history (and probably any discussions on the talk page) can and should be used to figure out who is a good contact for minor issues. Any problems with an article, however, should be taken to the article talk page and not a user's talk page. A user who is active in that article should have that page watched, so (s)he can answer any questions there. (PS: before I get WP:BADGERED, I just want to say that I have read the entire thread so far. Just because I disagree with you, Daniel, doesn't mean that I don't understand what you're saying). Tavix |  Talk  15:16, 17 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]

• Keep - This template consists of only two sentences, one of which explicitly negates page ownership. The benefit by far outweighs the theoretical detriment. Neelix (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Just because the template says it shouldn't be used to assert page ownership, doesn't mean it doesn't or won't do just that. And why can't users simply post questions on the article talk page, where they can receive feedback from multiple editors and future editors can read the discussion because it's not fragmented on someone elses TP. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't look now, EoRdE6, you just might now be accused of "refuting everyone else's votes". Seems you're well on your way to it, at any rate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If someone has a question about an article, they may as well post it to the talk page so everyone interested in the article can see rather than going to the talk page of anyone mentioned in the banner and posting there. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. –Chase (alternate account) (talk / alt contribs / main contribs) 16:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, surely, those listed in this box would have the article talk page on their watchlist. Alakzi (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my reply to Kanguole for why I don't this works. And note in the actual example I posted, the query to me was indeed posted on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I raised questions about this template on its documentation talk page in January, and was about to nominate it for deletion myself when I was distracted. Am pleased to be pinged to this discussion and endorse the deletion. What bothered me about it, when I learned of its existence, was precisely its impact on new editors, to cite an issue someone raised. New editors should not be diverted to self-styled "maintainers" of the article. I don't care that the template documentation says that it does not imply article ownership. That's like buying a house and saying "this doesn't imply I own it." It does. In esoteric articles on flora and fauna and the like, new editors should simply raise questions about sourcing on the article talk page. I don't care how noncontroversial an article is, that is the procedure. I wouldn't dream of using this template on any of the noncontroversial articles I've been involved in. I may not be available to respond to a query, and I don't have all the answers if I am. Coretheapple (talk) 17:32, 17 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]

• Delete because, despite the claims made, the editor who uses this template has stamped their ownership on that article. Talk pages and Projects are for any discussions or problems. One editor appears to be taking ownership of the template too. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:39, 17 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]

• Strong Delete - Despite the disclaimer, this template does imply ownership. Some of the keep !voters insist on evidence for this intuition, and I point them to the cognitive bias known as the authority bias, which is "The tendency to value an ambiguous stimulus (e.g., an art performance) according to the opinion of someone who is seen as an authority on the topic."^[3] Slapping this template on an article talk page plays off of this bias: many editors will inevitably defer more to that one "authoritative" editor's opinion, whether deservedly or not--especially the newer editors that this template is supposedly intended to help. If editors have questions or concerns about an article, they can post them on the talk page; any subject-matter experts can then respond and have their arguments evaluated like everyone else, without the discussion-stifling biases that this template creates. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, wouldn't pointing to a psychological phenomenon as a justification for a decision in the absence of empirical evidence which has repeatedly been requested from those in favor of making the decision be, in its own way, an attempt to employ the authoritarian bias to secure the desired outcome? I would also consider (as it has been apparent to most of the other participants in this discussion that I have) the effect of coming upon a discussion here with dozens of !votes already lodged against the position one is prepared to take may have in light of whether someone who does actually leaves a !vote themselves, in light of this phenomenon. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Daniel, there is nothing "authoritarian" about Prototime's argument. It is, however authoritative, in raising a good point that is intelligent and persuasive. The two words (authoritarian and authoritative) are very similar in spelling but are utterly different concepts that should not be confused. Coretheapple (talk) 18:58, 18 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]

• • • • The problem with psychological studies is that they tend to be very fragile. Citing a sort-of-related psychological effect is not evidence that it's actually pertinent to this specific context. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The existence of an authority bias may not unassailably show that editors are deferring to the editor identified in the template (we would need a specific scientific study of this template's usage for that), but it certainly constitutes evidence; it increases the likelihood that editors are doing so. And the risk outweighs any potential benefit the template offers. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just as the existence of firearms may not unassailably show that Smith killed Jones, but it certainly constitutes evidence; it increases the likelihood that he did so. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wrong. (Though nice attempt at a parallel sentence construction.) Cognitive biases are something most people have; firearms are not. If Smith had a firearm when Jones died, and Jones was killed by a firearm, then Smith's firearm would indeed constitute evidence that Smith killed Jones, though by itself it would not be enough to convict. Similarly, people having this cognitive bias when encountering this template increases the likelihood that they will defer to the editor in the template. Is the existence of this cognitive bias enough to "convict"? Wikipedia does not require evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt", it requires consensus, and clearly you aren't convinced--but then, you're not the only judge. Still, you want further evidence? Then look to the overwhelming number of delete !votes. Each one of them indicates a person who feels that this template creates WP:OWN issues. You dismiss their votes because they lack "evidence", but their feelings about the template are evidence of the problem they describe. Each one of them intuitively understands what psychologists call the "authority bias" and feel that the template will cause editors to defer to the views of the expert editor identified in the template. If the people participating in this conversation feel that way, then certainly many others not participating in this conversation do as well. And for whatever benefit this template supposedly offers, that risk is simply unacceptable. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:13, 19 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]

• Strong Delete as useless and potentially misleading. Why misleading? - a perennial "Quis custodiet custodes?" question: who maintains the "maintained" template instance? I doubt all 4,700+ page "maintainers" 'demaintain' it when away for longer time or especially forever. Second, if you are 'maintaining' it, you must have it on your watchlist. And you are supposed to answer questions in talk pages. And you are supposed not to revert newbies' changes without respectful explanations, without them begging "Mr. Maintainman, please is it OK I do this?". I noticed that many 'maintaineers' really suck at the latter issue. Therefore I see this template is little beyond a massage somebody's ego (a WP-OWNish thing, I'd say.) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The template is ripe for abuse. If editors have questions on an article, they should be posted to that article's talk page. Many of the keep arguments seem to be based solely on the premise that's it's usefull without providing anything to back it up. -- Calidum 04:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It seems that the main argument for keep is that it makes it easier for those considering an edit to contact the maintainers to discuss and collaborate. Here is my very brief summary of the keeps so far:
  1. per Winkelvi: it gives users an individual editor to go to with questions and concerns
  2. per Maky: it helps users know who to contact about an article or related subject
  3. per Daniel Case: it helps users contact someone who is willing to take responsibility for an article
  4. per Opabinia regalis: there is no evidence of a problem
  5. per Doc James: it provides for greater transparency
  6. per Calvin999: it helps editors go to him with issues or comments on articles
  7. per Lady Lotus: it helps you go to a specific person (when no one answers the talk page)
  8. per Srich32977: it identifies 'maintained' articles and maintaining users
  9. per Neelix: its benefit outweighs the theoretical detriment

(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]

• Comment This whole discussion shows what happens when an editor assumes ownership and argues with everybody. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:11, 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]

• Strong Delete. This serves no purpose except to contradict WP:OWN while pretending not to. It provides no limit in subject or time to what it applies to, thus implying any change to the article must be approved by the stated editor, from here on. That's the very definition of OWN.

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]

• Delete: I think there are some possible advantages to the template (encourages 1-to-1 help, which some may prefer), but there are also some disadvantages: (a) it can imply / be used to imply ownership of an article; (b) someone who is already on a talk page should be able to post comments there, without having to be redirected to another place where fewer people will see their comment; (c) it requires constant maintenance with little benefit. Anyone who considers themselves to be a maintainer should have that page watchlisted, so no-one's missing anything if the person wanting help posts on the talk. It's probably also more discouraging to newbies if you ask a specific person and they "ignore" you (due to inactivity), rather than if you post on a talk and no-one replies. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with the suggestion that a sticky Talk section suffices on those articles where it's indeed helpful, and like Coretheapple, I have had my opinion influenced by edit-wars over the Template. The sometime gains are just not worth that kind of lamitude. Choor monster (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As Stevie had said, all of the keep arguments are excellent and valid; I have never seen abuse of the template, and I welcome rewording of the template if that would help. I agree that the template gives a human aspect to Wikipedia. Many of the delete arguments use unsubstantiated speculation and assume bad faith.

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]

• Keep—if an article is built using offline references, then the maintainer should have copies of those references. I know that for articles I've tagged that I maintain, I have a file of newspaper articles, copies of the books, copies of the maps, etc. If anyone had a question regarding the sources, I'd be the best/first person to contact since I have them all. Yes, a reader or editor could track me down from the article history, but this template provides a simple notice. Yes, that person could attempt to locate the sources in libraries, but since I've had to comb libraries across a few states to locate the sourced I've used, why should that person have to duplicate my effort? Imzadi 1979 → 02:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn't it be better to leave a note on the talk page saying exactly that? Using the maintained template does not get that point across, but if you add a talk page notice saying that you have the offline sources, someone would actually know to contact you about that. Tavix |  Talk  06:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The first line of the template says, "The following editors are available to help with questions about verification and sources in relation to this article". That's why I use it, to alert others that I can answer questions regarding the sources because I have the sources used to write the article. Imzadi 1979 → 08:41, 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]

• Delete. As others have argued, the potential for mischief far outweighs any value to the project. Neutrality^talk 05:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Delete - the line "This in no way implies page ownership" is probably there for a clear reason - this template is too likely to be used for OWNership reasons; I see no sinificant advantage to it, either - if I want to have an expert verify the info, the page history is where I would look. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Widely misused as I have seen. Very few instances of good practice and non-ownership. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:22, 19 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]

• Observation thus far - The majority of those wanting to delete the template cry "Ownership issues!" without providing examples. The majority of those wanting to keep the template have given great examples of why keeping it is 1) a good thing, 2) a harmless thing, 3) and crying ownership is not assuming good faith and making bad faith judgements and assumptions. Even if there are more deletes than keeps, the keeps, by far, have provided to best arguments for their !votes. The deletes just keep saying "delete" and "ownership!" -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Observations. This is the sort of nom that would benefit from a brief !vote moratorium. Where's the consensus-building to be found here? In what ways is this not a vote count? Who's the closer to say which arguments have merit and which don't? Indeed, that's for everybody here to figure out between themselves.

  Has anybody contributed to free software? Or have you participated in any horizontal organisation? Do you think they'd be able to survive if they operated in this manner? Alakzi (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment concerning "evidence" - A few people !voting "keep" are incessantly demanding "examples" of a phenomenon that is difficult to measure but easy to understand. There are no diffs created when the template discourages editors from challenging the actions of the expert-editor identified in the template. Nonetheless, that risk remains. So the question should not be "where are the examples?"; it should be "is the risk worth the benefits of the template?" And the answer is "no." Almost everything that this template accomplishes can still be accomplished by editors having normal dialogue on article talk pages--and without the discussion-stifling risks the template presents. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 16:30, 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]

• Strong Keep per all the excellent Keep arguments above. Also, I will note I as a long-term Wikipedian have never witnessed abuse of this banner in all its existence. I am open-minded to mild re-wording on the template if that would settle anyone's nerves. But I especially like the argument made that this template helps give a more human feeling to the site. All its intentions are is this: "Hey, I'm here and happy to help you." This is a good thing. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible enhancements to allay concerns: 1) Make it clear in template that more than one "maintainer" is welcome to add their name to the list. 2) Make it clear in template that like all other Wikipedia articles, everyone is free to edit it -- there are no special restrictions (unless the article is protected in some way). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:17, 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]

• Evidence – Daniel Case has asked for evidence from those who wish to delete. I can provide some empirical and anecdotal evidence to support keeping the template. I've been going through the Category:Maintained articles and culling the inactive editors (1 year or more). From the original 4,755 listings, the number is now 4,484. (I'm perhaps 20% through.) I observe that most templates (recent and old) have one editor listed, but I've also seen templates with multiple users, such as Talk:WindSeeker (a GA), Talk:Worlds End State Park (a FA), and Talk:United States (another GA). And I observe that large numbers of the articles have high quality ratings. So I posit that such ratings come about because editors are willing to put their names on the product. Moreover, I observe that editors who choose to "maintain" the articles generally have high edit counts, numerous GA, FA, DYK icons, and lots of Barnstars. (I'll continue my gnomish culling and give a tally later on.) Finally the fact that 270 old users have been culled shows that such users are not claiming ownership of the articles. – S. Rich (talk) 19:38, 19 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]

• More evidence – so, I went through the K's. 63 entries, 1 is a user = 62 articles. Of these we have:
  • 16 WP:Featured articles (26%)
  • 17 WP:Good articles (27%)
  • 10 B-class articles
  • 7 C-class articles
  • 13 start-class articles
  • 3 stubs
  • 4 redirects

(The number of Ks is less now because I removed the templates with inactive editors.)

• Of the editors:
  • 46 are active
  • 19 were inactive (now removed from templates)
  • 2 are administrators
  • 2 (actually 1 person) is deceased

(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]

• Weak keep if rewritten thusly:
  • remove the link to OWN per BEANS
  • change lead sentence to "The following editors have volunteered to assist with any questions regarding this article:" or similar
  • change closing sentence to "All editors are encouraged to contribute to the encyclopedia." or similar

—ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Even more evidence – so, I went through the D's. 147 entries, 4 are non-article files = 143 articles. Of these we have:
  • 18 WP:Featured articles & Featured lists (13%)
  • 29 WP:Good articles (20%)
  • 19 B-class articles
  • 31 C-class articles
  • 41 start-class articles
  • 3 stubs
  • 1 unassessed
  • 1 list-class

(The number of Ds is less now because I removed the templates with inactive editors.)

• Of the editors:
  • 119 are active (includes at least 8 admins)
  • 42 were inactive (now removed from templates) either because retirement, redlinked name, and in case blocked as a sock
  • 1 is deceased

(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]

• delete at best pointless, given the many ways editors can seek help on any page, at worst a deterrent to other editors who might be wary on stepping on the maintainers' implied authority. If editors want help from other editors familiar with the page they can check its recent history, rather than rely on this notice which may be out of date and/or indentify inactive editors.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:15, 20 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]

• Delete - have always found it odd we have talk page banners linked to many retired editors.-- Moxy (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are my proposed changes to the wording of the template. Just one editor's opinion, but amidst the delete it/keep it back-and-forth, the obvious solution—fix it—seemed to be getting lost. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 23:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Extremely, incredibly strong keep ;-) I use this template, but only for articles and lists that I have helped bring to FA/FL. I don't use it otherwise. Anyone, especially a new editor (which we are surely hoping to attract) wanting to edit one of those articles at least knows who to talk to if they want an explanation of anything. I've had a number of inquiries on my talk page off the back of the template. I agree with editors above who have said it is often used to indicate an editor that will take responsibility for the article content. It doesn't mean there is any ownership being asserted. On the other hand, I have been subjected to an extended tirade of harassment because I didn't respond to tendentious comments on a talk page which contained the template. On balance, I still think it is worthwhile keeping it. Tweak it, sure, but we should have a template that performs a similar function. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67: Is there any reason that those enquiries and your answers shouldn't have been on the article talk page, where other editors interested in the article might have benefitted from them? Kanguole 02:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for Kanguole: Article talk pages are available when the concern is an article improvement idea. The Pump is there when the concern is community wide, and the drama boards give vent when more specific issues arise. Those who shout "OWN" (or other reasons) as a rationale to delete the Maintained template actually advocate the elimination (or restriction) of a device which encourages communication. E.g., they say "Don't provide this template because it might encourage non-article-talk-page communication." (Also, @ATinySliver: I like your idea for template revision. Hopefully this long thread can be closed as "no consensus" and include an encouragement to revise the template.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • S. Rich: much obliged. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kanguole. I re-directed discussion there when it occurred. The point, I believe, is that it opened a line of one-on-one communication that obviously was attractive to the new editor concerned, and was probably less threatening. Many older hands forget that new editors can be tentative at first. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • You use the word "believe," in other words, you're speculating. That's fine. There is no hard data we can draw on as to whether this template is good or, as most people believe, a negative factor. We have to use our best judgment, as with all such questions. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peacemaker67: Please can you provide links to two or three such discussions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A few observations:

  Regarding the template

  a. The name {{maintained}} implies that the editors listed are maintainers of the article.

  b. The current text says they are "available to help with questions about verification and sources" (emphasis added).

  c. These two are not synonymous

  Regarding the keep arguments

  d. Some emphasize that the editor is making sources available

  e. Some emphasize making it easier to contact the editors

  f. Some emphasize template use on obscure articles

  g. Some emphasize template use on FA or GA articles

  This seems to indicate that this template is being used to accomplish significantly different ends

  It may well be better to have more specific tools to meet the specific ends.

  h. Create a new template for editors to announce access to specific offline/paywalled sources.

  Some at WP:ORE announce owning a key resource, Oregon Geographic Names.

  i. Create a way to record the key players who have helped bring an article to GA or FA status.

  j. Create a method to generate a list of the frequent editors of a page/talk combination.

  k. Create a template to display that list

  l. Create a template to simultaneously ping that list.

  m. Create a method to list unanswered talk page threads.

  n. Create a method to be notified of unanswered talk page threads.

  IMO, this collection of tools would be a significant improvement over the current template. YBG (talk) 05:02, 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]

• Keep per Lady Lotus. It's a good way of saying "Hey, this person is familiar with this subject, and you should consult him if you want to get help". I understand that it's a problem when a page is listed as being maintained by someone who's no longer here, but the solution is removing the template from the page, not by removing it from Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the Deleter concern is with editors who are here, and who insist on letting you know he/she is here. Choor monster (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still waiting for evidence of this "problem". Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you are just engaging in deliberate WP:IDHT. The "problem" is what started the call for discussion, and it's being explained repeatedly. Choor monster (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you back up my point, then. One problem with one use is an illegitimate rationale for deleting all uses. So I repeat: Where is the evidence of a significant mis-use of the template? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I haven't waded through the entire discussion but I just added this to Talk:Hammond organ as I settled a content dispute using a book source I have. Indeed, a substantial amount of this article is cited to offline sources. While other people can buy or borrow these sources (which would make my life easier, for one thing), it can be more pragmatic to ping me and say "does book 'x' actually say 'y'"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This template has absolutely no bearing on whether or not an individual editor is going to engage in article ownership. It also doesn't assist an editor in "owning" the article - that's entirely based upon their editing/reverting behavior. Hence, it's rather misguided/asinine to argue that this template violates WP:OWN in any way, since one can say that he/she owns an article, yet not violate that policy simply by not engaging in such behavior - this is essentially because WP:OWN is a conduct / article behavioral policy and not a talk page policy like WP:TPG. I also obviously oppose this since deleting the template will break my signature unless I recreate a userfied version for the articles I've maintained. >.> Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm a longtime user who has used the template occasionally and a wikifriend of several who have done so more often than myself. I can't remember or link to a previous discussion from any editor complaining about about a user utilizing the template or claiming ownership of any page so maintained in my narrow realm of pagespace (19th century American biography). For my part, in my first hundred edits or so I made contact with at least two editors who maintain pagespace in which I had special interest. One of those editors asked if he could add my name to the template and then put my name first. Hardly ownership. As User:Seppi333 points out above, lots of actual ownership might inevitably occur on Wikipedia. However, it doesn't seem likely (or frequent) that such OWNers might openly announce their intention using a template which specifically eschews such behaviors. I've been working around articles containing the template for almost ten years and I've never seen it abused. In the hypothetical, I can see why it might seem worrisome; in the actual I've never seen abuse or discouragement. Currently I am seeing on my watchlist a number of maintained article talkpages having their maintained template being deleted (if maintainer has been inactive); this seems a very appropriate upkeep task. BusterD (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this ownership template. If it's truly valuable, Wikipedia should automatically create a list of "recent editors" for an article on the backend. That has no maintenance burden, no inaccuracy, and it's a neutral fact. -Sigeng (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where has it been established via examples/evidence that this is an "ownership" template? The template is very clear that it has nothing to do with owning an article. And without substantive examples/evidence to the contrary, what we are left with is personal opinion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppose I were to put a sticker on a library's public computer in a library that says: The following people are available to help with questions about the use of this computer: Sigeng. This does not imply ownership of this computer. Everyone is encouraged to use it. I tend to think that the library would remove this sticker because it would clearly suggest that I have some sort of status or authority with this computer above other users - especially if were just another patron not a designated volunteer of some sort. It implies that I should be consulted, or that I have priority access if I come along. It's strongly passive aggressive - "you're being watched". My additional point is that the implementation is backwards and broken - dynamic information such as this should be derived. -Sigeng (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sigeng, suppose the sticker said "Would you like help on how to use this computer? Please see the librarian." In fact, the librarian does have status and authority. But we don't read either version of the sticker as implying anything other than the plain meaning of the words. – S. Rich (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since my uses were being removed because "user not active on this article". I removed all my uses. -- Gadget850 ^talk 10:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to use the template, then re-assert it. Voting to delete a template because your uses were removed doesn't seem to make any sense. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, being the one who removed it, agree with Stevie. You once thought it was a good template, but like many of us (I imagine) you moved on to other things and interests. (Good for you for keeping the articles on your watchlist.) You were free to add and free to remove. Allow others the same freedom. If you won't change your !vote to keep, at least change it to neutral. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (as is). Hard to believe that this template has generated so much "no-consensus" discussion. It's an obvious keeper, though, with many possible underlying sources of value. The criticisms of "ownership" are countermanded by the explicit statement in the template. It's almost comical to read, "I know the template states that ownership isn't implied, but ownership really IS implied, isn't it?" Made me smile. Those who feel that way should read the diff between being an "owner" and being a "custodian" or "steward" of an article. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 04:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I work with really obscure sources which may not actually be digitized outside of my laptop and the computers at Sinematek Indonesia. If a new editor comes across an article I've written and wants to verify something, they'll know where to turn with this template. Too few people think of checking the history - and that goes for well-established editors as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Anyone needing help these days usually posts on the talkpage regardless of the template, As seen here [4] some editors become inactive so thus "This article is being maintained by someone who isn't even active here anymore", The template does seem imho on the edge of WP:OWN, Personally I've never seen the point to the template but there we go. –Davey2010^Talk 15:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A relic of old cabals and members-only clubs whose retirement is long past due. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I can see the value of this template, but I have long been aware of the drawbacks as raised in this TfD. But I would point out, regardless of whether this has been raised already (I didn't care to read through to find out), that a good reason for deleting this template would be that users can be listed on it but may not even be active on Wikipedia any longer; it therefore falls to other users to fix the template. It's not a guarantee whatsoever that anyone will respond to requests regarding the page in question. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 20:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles which encourages the stewardship of articles and warns: Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. The template has demonstrated its usefulness to not just to editors but to readers as well, and thereby advances our primary mission: the construction of an encyclopaedia. Finding a subject-matter expert from the edit statistics is neither simple nor straightforward. Such usefulness is the criterion for retaining any template. No evidence that it has been abused. The argument that it is not useful because users can be listed on it but may not still be active on Wikipedia any longer is absurd, and can easily addressed because I can write a Bot that periodically checks if the user listed is still active and removes the template if not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 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]

• Keep - what a debate this is. First, I think a lack of updates in practice is not a good reason to delete; the template should be looked at for what it is. I think it's a useful template to have, more useful than any issues caused by implying ownership (which I don't think the template does a very good job of). I can imagine cases where editors (particularly new ones) may have questions about a topic, and rather than post on an inactive article talk page, will find it more helpful to directly communicate with someone who has stated they are knowledgeable of the subject and can help out. I think this is particularly useful for more obscure subjects, where one's expertise knowledge can best come in handy. That all being said, I do think the template's wording can be greatly improved. Something like ATinySliver's suggested changes above make the template's message seem more open, inviting, and less ownership-y. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SuperHamster: Certainly an inactive article talk page can be intimidating, but directing enquiries to a user talk page (of a user who is surely watching the article) exacerbates that problem. Kanguole 10:03, 27 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)

• Delete - I'd never even seen this template until recently. It does seem rather presumptuous of the person adding it. A better way would be to somehow give a link to the article's "Revision history statistics", which gives a list of the editors in order of most edits and shows when the editors' last edt was made. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Although this discussion is deep in WP:TL;DR territory, I tried to read almost every !vote and comment. I find it interesting that those in favor of keeping have at least put forth some evidence that this template is benificial, however those in favor of deleting have only assumed bad faith of whoever uses this template, have shown no evidence that this template has done more harm than good, and mostly regurgitate the same WP:OWN argument repeatedly.

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]

• Comment: Perhaps consider the delete !votes as evidence in and of themselves that this template has caused issues in the past. Editors here in favor of deleting this template are probably speaking from past experience that this template is intimidating, which actually means it's more likely that diffs do not exist to verify their position - it probably, after all, scared them away from editing that page or any associated with it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC) (amended to include italicized words 00:21, 29 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]

• Keep if altered per reasoned keep comments and ATinySliver's alternate proposal (from which I would replace "...questions about this article, including issues of..." with "...questions about this article on issues of..." Lapadite (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if altered because it is used everywhere. Many article talk pages use this. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 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]

• Delete - What bothers me in this template is the fact that it invites people to discuss the article outside of the article's own discussion page, by directing them to personal talk pages. Such scattered discussions are hardly traceable and will probably be missed by someone interested in knowing what has been discussed previously. —capmo (talk) 05:28, 6 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]

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]

!!! 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]

• Support ATinySliver's alternate wording. Acknowledging volunteer efforts won't stop ownership issues, and neither will deletion of the template (the original question on which I have no opinion.) EllenCT (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. These changes are reasonable. Since the original was never about "ownership", these changes only help in that they make more clear to editors they are as free to make changes for the affected article as on any other article. I disagree with a commenter above who suggests these changes are turning it into a different template. As far as I can see, the template carries the same intent: here are people who can help you. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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]

• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I thought {{Infobox station}} had been amended with additional parameters to make {{Infobox bus station}} redundant as well. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does indeed look like {{Infobox bus station}} has all of the parameters of {{Infobox station}}. Thanks for the heads-up. Alakzi (talk) 21:22, 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.

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]

• Delete per nom. That's a complete mess. Alakzi (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and the outcome of the linked similar discussion above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:25, 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.

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]

• weak delete, redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 17 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.