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.
Unused, appears to be some sort of test from April 2013. Either delete or userfy.
NSH002 (
talk) 11:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Userfy as test template that should not yet be in template space, or delete if the test is over —PC-XT+ 02:03, 24 August 2014 (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.
Per
WP:NENAN - only one link. No indication that individual seasons are notable.
Fenix down (
talk) 06:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 17:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete only has one bluelink, and that is under discussion at AFD for the 2nd time. Not needed.
GiantSnowman 17:29, 18 August 2014 (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 keep, but trim.
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 02:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Of all the collaborations listed here, only two of them have had any activity in the last 6 months (
WP:MED and
WP:TAFI, of which I am a part of). My primary concern here is that we are directing potential editors to projects that have had no activity in literally years. If I were looking to join a collaboration, I would find nothing more discouraging than to discover that essentially all but a tiny percentage of the organized collaborations are inactive.
My proposal would be to delete this template, and encourage the usage of templates for specific collaborations. This would help manage the activity of collaborations (when their templates get out of date) and also bring further attention to projects that are active.
NickPenguin(
contribs) 16:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep and prune down to those that have had relatively recent activity. Also retain the
Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement link, which is an active WikiProject and the
Wikipedia:Inactive collaborations link in the template, which is quite useful in that it links to many collaboration pages, many of which are marked historical.
NorthAmerica1000 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: Just how often would this even be used? If it's a somewhat commonly used template, then I'd be with
Northamerica1000, but I can't think of any reason to keep it otherwise. Supernerd11Firemind^_^Pokedex 23:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
question: how many of the projects using this template are active? I would like to see this discussion revisited if the answer is less than 5.
Frietjes (
talk) 20:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep and trim, listing the inactive collabs at
WP:Inactive collaborations. It would seem more useful to direct editors looking to collaborate to active collaborations, rather than removing this template and effectively leaving them at a dead-end (in terms of collaboration). - Evad37[
talk 02:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Note: Per
WP:TFD#REASONS ("you should edit the template to fix its problems"), I have trimmed the template. I left Dinosaurs in there for the moment as the page is receiving non-trivial edits, but would not object to it also being removed. - Evad37[
talk 09:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep and trim/update - we should be keeping anything that possibly promotes collaborative editing.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 10:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep and trim/update to see if it can be effective —PC-XT+ 07:18, 28 August 2014 (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 topics in this template are already included in
Template:Autism resources. So, it's redundant, and it's unnecessary to have a separate template for the mainstream view of autism (as opposed to, for example,
the one for the self-styled "Autism rights movement," which is based on the "
neurodiversity" view).
Holdek (
talk) 08:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
delete, redundant.
Frietjes (
talk) 14:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
keep - This infobox serves an informative purpose as contrasting with the topics listed in
Template:Autism rights movement, whereas
Template:Autism resources lumps everything together. The only reason the cure movement template appears redundant with
Template:Autism resources is because of
Holdek's recent changes, particularly the change of title from "Autism cure and prevention topics" to "Mainstream autism topics". I believe this change should not have been executed in the first place as it creates a disparity between the title and content.
Muffinator (
talk) 20:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
"Autism cure and prevention topics" and "Mainstream autism topics" cover the same things. --
Holdek (
talk) 22:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
First of all, where is your reliable source saying that these are the mainstream opinions and the ones at
Template:Autism rights movement are fringe? This seems to be an unnecessarily
bold assertion. Second, "cure and prevention" is much more specific than "autism topics" and that is why this template exists. The difference between the two is apparent by looking at
Template:Autism resources: Out of the 117 topics the template links to, only about 35 of them represent a pro-cure/prevention perspective. Although we shouldn't trust
Wikipedia alone, that doesn't support the position that "pro-cure" and "mainstream" are synonymous.
Muffinator (
talk) 23:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
That movement is certainly not a mainstream one. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to call it "fringe," but it is at least "alternative," in that it contradicts the American Psychiatric Association, the World Health Organization, etc. --
Holdek (
talk) 02:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
An article not existing on Wikipedia is not an indication that it necessarily lacks notability, since Wikipedia is
not a reliable source.
Muffinator (
talk) 03:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
That's not what I'm arguing.
Holdek (
talk) 04:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
comment - (I'm the creator of the template back in 2006) The nominator changed the title of the template as pointed out by Muffinator to an outright ridiculous title the same day of the nomination. Wikipedia generally does not decide what is "mainstream", as that practically a POV in and of itself. There is a movement to cure Autism as there is a movement brushing against it (for varying reasons) - that's the context here. As for whether the template itself is still needed or should be merged/changed... I'll leave that up to others. However, since this template and
Template:Autism rights movement serve similar purposes (side nav), they should probably be discussed together.
Ryan Norton 23:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Even if it was reverted to what Muffinator last made it (which I changed because I believe it was too narrow to cover the topics listed), I still think it would be redundant. So, I've gone ahead and changed the title back to what it was to begin with so that it doesn't complicate the issue of this nomination. --
Holdek (
talk) 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Shii has made some good edits to
Medical model of autism, but I'm still concerned about it being misrepresented in terms of how much it is "promoted" in the cultural sense. From the limited research I did on Google Books, it seems to be more of a scientific topic, not an advocacy one. Autism awareness/research/treatment "movements" certainly exist, in the same way there is a "movement" to cure breast cancer, but I think that they use the medical model as a basis, rather than the two terms being synonymous. Perhaps some folks who do regular work on medical articles and are familiar with the
Medical model of disability can weigh in as well? I'll put a notice on the medical project page. --
Holdek (
talk) 04:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)reply
delete Should go if anywhere at the bottom as a navbox.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment, leaning towardsDelete. I came here from the note at
WT:NEURO. It's always tricky to define a template in terms of a "movement", in that doing so tends to make such a movement "official", and there better be longstanding sourcing to back that up. Here, we are dealing with material that includes advocacy for
fringe science. It seems to me that
Template:Autism resources meets all the needs we have for a navigation aid, and
Template:Autism rights movement defines "movement" in a less fringe-y way. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 14:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Revised after reading subsequent comments. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 00:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - enshrines a fringey concept which is OR/non-encyclopedic in nature, since no such movement exists in accepted knowledge around this topic.
Alexbrntalk|
contribs|
COI 09:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - as misleading and POV to fringe concept. I would have said merge to
Template:Autism resources but this has apparently happened already.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 10:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete because, regardless of organization or information differences, the navigation is redundant, and this is a navbox. —PC-XT+ 07:09, 28 August 2014 (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.
Unused, appears to be some sort of test from April 2013. Either delete or userfy.
NSH002 (
talk) 11:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Userfy as test template that should not yet be in template space, or delete if the test is over —PC-XT+ 02:03, 24 August 2014 (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.
Per
WP:NENAN - only one link. No indication that individual seasons are notable.
Fenix down (
talk) 06:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
GiantSnowman 17:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete only has one bluelink, and that is under discussion at AFD for the 2nd time. Not needed.
GiantSnowman 17:29, 18 August 2014 (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 keep, but trim.
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 02:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Of all the collaborations listed here, only two of them have had any activity in the last 6 months (
WP:MED and
WP:TAFI, of which I am a part of). My primary concern here is that we are directing potential editors to projects that have had no activity in literally years. If I were looking to join a collaboration, I would find nothing more discouraging than to discover that essentially all but a tiny percentage of the organized collaborations are inactive.
My proposal would be to delete this template, and encourage the usage of templates for specific collaborations. This would help manage the activity of collaborations (when their templates get out of date) and also bring further attention to projects that are active.
NickPenguin(
contribs) 16:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep and prune down to those that have had relatively recent activity. Also retain the
Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement link, which is an active WikiProject and the
Wikipedia:Inactive collaborations link in the template, which is quite useful in that it links to many collaboration pages, many of which are marked historical.
NorthAmerica1000 07:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: Just how often would this even be used? If it's a somewhat commonly used template, then I'd be with
Northamerica1000, but I can't think of any reason to keep it otherwise. Supernerd11Firemind^_^Pokedex 23:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
question: how many of the projects using this template are active? I would like to see this discussion revisited if the answer is less than 5.
Frietjes (
talk) 20:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep and trim, listing the inactive collabs at
WP:Inactive collaborations. It would seem more useful to direct editors looking to collaborate to active collaborations, rather than removing this template and effectively leaving them at a dead-end (in terms of collaboration). - Evad37[
talk 02:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Note: Per
WP:TFD#REASONS ("you should edit the template to fix its problems"), I have trimmed the template. I left Dinosaurs in there for the moment as the page is receiving non-trivial edits, but would not object to it also being removed. - Evad37[
talk 09:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep and trim/update - we should be keeping anything that possibly promotes collaborative editing.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 10:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep and trim/update to see if it can be effective —PC-XT+ 07:18, 28 August 2014 (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 topics in this template are already included in
Template:Autism resources. So, it's redundant, and it's unnecessary to have a separate template for the mainstream view of autism (as opposed to, for example,
the one for the self-styled "Autism rights movement," which is based on the "
neurodiversity" view).
Holdek (
talk) 08:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
delete, redundant.
Frietjes (
talk) 14:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
keep - This infobox serves an informative purpose as contrasting with the topics listed in
Template:Autism rights movement, whereas
Template:Autism resources lumps everything together. The only reason the cure movement template appears redundant with
Template:Autism resources is because of
Holdek's recent changes, particularly the change of title from "Autism cure and prevention topics" to "Mainstream autism topics". I believe this change should not have been executed in the first place as it creates a disparity between the title and content.
Muffinator (
talk) 20:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
"Autism cure and prevention topics" and "Mainstream autism topics" cover the same things. --
Holdek (
talk) 22:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
First of all, where is your reliable source saying that these are the mainstream opinions and the ones at
Template:Autism rights movement are fringe? This seems to be an unnecessarily
bold assertion. Second, "cure and prevention" is much more specific than "autism topics" and that is why this template exists. The difference between the two is apparent by looking at
Template:Autism resources: Out of the 117 topics the template links to, only about 35 of them represent a pro-cure/prevention perspective. Although we shouldn't trust
Wikipedia alone, that doesn't support the position that "pro-cure" and "mainstream" are synonymous.
Muffinator (
talk) 23:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
That movement is certainly not a mainstream one. I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to call it "fringe," but it is at least "alternative," in that it contradicts the American Psychiatric Association, the World Health Organization, etc. --
Holdek (
talk) 02:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
An article not existing on Wikipedia is not an indication that it necessarily lacks notability, since Wikipedia is
not a reliable source.
Muffinator (
talk) 03:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
That's not what I'm arguing.
Holdek (
talk) 04:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
comment - (I'm the creator of the template back in 2006) The nominator changed the title of the template as pointed out by Muffinator to an outright ridiculous title the same day of the nomination. Wikipedia generally does not decide what is "mainstream", as that practically a POV in and of itself. There is a movement to cure Autism as there is a movement brushing against it (for varying reasons) - that's the context here. As for whether the template itself is still needed or should be merged/changed... I'll leave that up to others. However, since this template and
Template:Autism rights movement serve similar purposes (side nav), they should probably be discussed together.
Ryan Norton 23:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Even if it was reverted to what Muffinator last made it (which I changed because I believe it was too narrow to cover the topics listed), I still think it would be redundant. So, I've gone ahead and changed the title back to what it was to begin with so that it doesn't complicate the issue of this nomination. --
Holdek (
talk) 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Shii has made some good edits to
Medical model of autism, but I'm still concerned about it being misrepresented in terms of how much it is "promoted" in the cultural sense. From the limited research I did on Google Books, it seems to be more of a scientific topic, not an advocacy one. Autism awareness/research/treatment "movements" certainly exist, in the same way there is a "movement" to cure breast cancer, but I think that they use the medical model as a basis, rather than the two terms being synonymous. Perhaps some folks who do regular work on medical articles and are familiar with the
Medical model of disability can weigh in as well? I'll put a notice on the medical project page. --
Holdek (
talk) 04:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)reply
delete Should go if anywhere at the bottom as a navbox.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 03:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment, leaning towardsDelete. I came here from the note at
WT:NEURO. It's always tricky to define a template in terms of a "movement", in that doing so tends to make such a movement "official", and there better be longstanding sourcing to back that up. Here, we are dealing with material that includes advocacy for
fringe science. It seems to me that
Template:Autism resources meets all the needs we have for a navigation aid, and
Template:Autism rights movement defines "movement" in a less fringe-y way. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 14:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Revised after reading subsequent comments. --
Tryptofish (
talk) 00:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - enshrines a fringey concept which is OR/non-encyclopedic in nature, since no such movement exists in accepted knowledge around this topic.
Alexbrntalk|
contribs|
COI 09:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - as misleading and POV to fringe concept. I would have said merge to
Template:Autism resources but this has apparently happened already.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 10:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete because, regardless of organization or information differences, the navigation is redundant, and this is a navbox. —PC-XT+ 07:09, 28 August 2014 (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.