4. As per issue 3, what the template should or should not contain is highly subjective and overly reliant on participating editors to arrive at a unique and original consensus thereof.
5. The template isn't being used by more than the one article that happens to have the same name, making it a fancy "see also" template for the top of that one article.
What do you think?
I think the template should be deleted or renamed (
Collective intelligence has the most robust article and weightiest meaning, top down it's more relevant), and atleast a couple of the articles should be merged (but that's a side issue tangentially related to this template).
70.15.11.211 (
talk) 15:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This template was considered for
deletion on 2017 October 8. The result of the discussion was "keep".
This template has so many issues.
1. The title probably isn't the most appropriate label for this collection of articles.
2. Several of the articles could easily be merged.
4. As per issue 3, what the template should or should not contain is highly subjective and overly reliant on participating editors to arrive at a unique and original consensus thereof.
5. The template isn't being used by more than the one article that happens to have the same name, making it a fancy "see also" template for the top of that one article.
What do you think?
I think the template should be deleted or renamed (
Collective intelligence has the most robust article and weightiest meaning, top down it's more relevant), and atleast a couple of the articles should be merged (but that's a side issue tangentially related to this template).
70.15.11.211 (
talk) 15:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)reply