The whole (daughter) (spouse) etc thing next to family members looks kinda ugly - can we change it? Nobody else has something like this. [18:02, May 11, 2008 ObamaGirlMachine]
Could we please remove the "lobbyist controversy" link and if possible the "Keating five" link? The first one is a tempest in a teapot that does not seem to be getting any ongoing coverage in the campaign, and as such looks like coatracked disparagement of the candidate. The "Keating Five" incident is a rare scandal in McCain's career but it does not seem central to defining who he is. Each candidate in any major race has lots of controversies, scandals, and accusations that arise, and many get quite a bit of press. But that's part of the political game in election cycles. The template is supposed to give people a quick point of reference to find the various articles about the candidates. I think it makes things less encyclopedic, and lowers us to news-like coverage, if these templates start to become directories of political attacks made against the candidates. Moreover, for the most part the norm here has been to not use the templates to point to every latest scandal, only the key major issues and events about a politician. Wikidemo ( talk) 13:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
What does everyone think of adding Sarah Palin to the Elections section of the template? KConWiki ( talk) 02:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Wikidemo proposed back in June to drop this link from the template [see first para. of "Controversy sections", above. This proposal has merit, but it seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. So this is a BUMP, and belated support for dropping this almost-dead issue from the template. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 03:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Templates should not simply be "everything where the bio subject is a central topic". By transcluding the templates many places, we are effectively endorsing the idea that "these topics are the most important ones related to the bio subject". In fact, we're proclaiming it even more strongly that by putting it into the body text of the main bio article.
If we were to take Wasted Time R's advice seriously, even fringe or conspiracy topics (that might genuinely warrant an article) would need to be included in general templates. The theory that McCain and/or Obama are not really US citizens are topics that might warrant their own (neutral) articles. There have been lawsuits, blog memes, etc. around these. However, putting such fringe topics on a central template would give it WP:UNDUE weight. I don't think the "lobbyist controversy" is WP:FRINGE, but I do think more judgment is need for its inclusion that just "McCain is the subject matter". LotLE× talk 23:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Books authored list, add hyperlink to the new article on Thirteen Soldiers. Thank you.
2600:1001:B12B:19C5:59C6:37B6:85EB:3062 ( talk) 12:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The whole (daughter) (spouse) etc thing next to family members looks kinda ugly - can we change it? Nobody else has something like this. [18:02, May 11, 2008 ObamaGirlMachine]
Could we please remove the "lobbyist controversy" link and if possible the "Keating five" link? The first one is a tempest in a teapot that does not seem to be getting any ongoing coverage in the campaign, and as such looks like coatracked disparagement of the candidate. The "Keating Five" incident is a rare scandal in McCain's career but it does not seem central to defining who he is. Each candidate in any major race has lots of controversies, scandals, and accusations that arise, and many get quite a bit of press. But that's part of the political game in election cycles. The template is supposed to give people a quick point of reference to find the various articles about the candidates. I think it makes things less encyclopedic, and lowers us to news-like coverage, if these templates start to become directories of political attacks made against the candidates. Moreover, for the most part the norm here has been to not use the templates to point to every latest scandal, only the key major issues and events about a politician. Wikidemo ( talk) 13:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
What does everyone think of adding Sarah Palin to the Elections section of the template? KConWiki ( talk) 02:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Wikidemo proposed back in June to drop this link from the template [see first para. of "Controversy sections", above. This proposal has merit, but it seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. So this is a BUMP, and belated support for dropping this almost-dead issue from the template. Cheers, Pete Tillman ( talk) 03:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Templates should not simply be "everything where the bio subject is a central topic". By transcluding the templates many places, we are effectively endorsing the idea that "these topics are the most important ones related to the bio subject". In fact, we're proclaiming it even more strongly that by putting it into the body text of the main bio article.
If we were to take Wasted Time R's advice seriously, even fringe or conspiracy topics (that might genuinely warrant an article) would need to be included in general templates. The theory that McCain and/or Obama are not really US citizens are topics that might warrant their own (neutral) articles. There have been lawsuits, blog memes, etc. around these. However, putting such fringe topics on a central template would give it WP:UNDUE weight. I don't think the "lobbyist controversy" is WP:FRINGE, but I do think more judgment is need for its inclusion that just "McCain is the subject matter". LotLE× talk 23:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Books authored list, add hyperlink to the new article on Thirteen Soldiers. Thank you.
2600:1001:B12B:19C5:59C6:37B6:85EB:3062 ( talk) 12:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)