Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 17

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2008 December 17)
< December 16 December 18 >

December 17 edit

Images for upload templates edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete all --Magioladitis (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-ifu1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-ifu2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-ifu3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-ifu4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Uw-ifu4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No one intentionally submits false requests to WP:IFU and if they did the reviewer would assume good faith anyway. If needed a personal note can be left on the users talk page and it'd probably be more effective than a template. Matt (Talk) 04:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:BBL sidebar edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Just. Happy‑melon 23:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BBL sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After looking through the main articles this template is pointing towards many of them seem POV forks or otherwise POV-problematic. This, in and of itself is indicative of positioning Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory as more mainstream than it actually is. It seems to be a fringe theory and the articles have become bloated with all manner of eye-rolling supposition rather than NPOV reporting. It's been said before but to restate - Wikipedia does not lead, we follow. We report what others have stated. This template mixes regular articles related to transgender/ transsexual people with multiple fringe POV articles and even lists the BLPs of the researchers. This is a disservice to our readers and seemingly violates WP:Fringe, WP:NPOV and possibly WP:BLP and WP:OR. The main articles; Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory controversy, Etiology of transsexualism, Autogynephilia, etc. all seem to have POV and ownership issues but removing ths template is a good first step. -- Banjeboi 03:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. -- Banjeboi 03:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yes, this space is full of POV wars and such. The template was created by User:Hfarmer, who typically takes one side in these wars; it has had no input from other points of view. I have no idea what was the purpose of its creation, but I don't think it helps anything. The POV of its creator and a clique of other editors seems to be the promotion of the BBL taxonomy, and its originators, against the criticisms of its opponents, who include most of the transgender community, from what I can tell. The whole space is a big mess, and this template has always struck me as an odd device to throw into the mix. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom and User:Dicklyon. It's completely inappropriate to have a template like this that makes a controversial fringe theory look even vaguely NPOV let alone implying that it is mainstream. Now we just wait for the usual abuse or implied legal threats from Hfarmer. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider striking comments which do not directly address the issue at hand. Geometry guy 12:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, that is gracious editing. Geometry guy 23:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The template serves no useful purpose. Geometry guy 12:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain Keep I will not fight it if other people think this should be deleted. Yes the comments about the position that DickLyon thinks I have is not relevant (He is demonstrably not a neutral actor at all basen on real world 3D life.) Nor is AliceJMarkham thinking it's out of place for me to tell someone slandering me that I will sue them in the circuit court of C(r)ook County. (Another user was spinning the fact that I was a guest of a border in someone's house into my breaking into that house. Who would take that?) But We are here to talk about the sidebar template. Not the articles. If you have a beef with the articles then let us discuss them on the articles talk pages. As for the actual template. The template was created so as to give a convenient place to link up the articles Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, BBL Theory etc. Also in the course of these articles the names of the major players in the controversy comes up. Blancahrd, Bailey, Connway, Andrea James etc. They all have some heavy duty web presence in regards to this topic and their relations to is are not a secret at all. Dr. Conway for example has talked to the LGBT press about this, as has Dr. Bailey. Furthermore the sidebar makes no claims about who is what, or who is right at all. How can there be a BLP or NPOV issue there? Last but not least it is said that it was created without input from anyone else. You all do realize that sidebars do have talk pages. So far as I know there has been no discussion of these issues on the talk page at all. Nor has anyone tried to be WP:BOLD and make the changes. Basically this is the first time I have heard a complaint that I recall about this side bar itself. All I ask is that in making a decision any administrator disregard comments that have to do with the articles and focus on the actual sidebar itself.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing. It is written that the sidebar has possible OR issues. Please specify.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
H, I don't deny typically taking the other side from you in these wars, and that I am friends with one of the principles in the controversy. But I'm a long-term serious wikipedia editor, usually maintaining a neutral POV on these issues, not a principle in the controversy here to push a POV; almost all of the other editors involved are members of the LGBT community or the sexologist community, and spend most of their wikipedia effort on refining the presentation of these issues from one side or the other; mostly from the sexologist side, which is the side you typically take, unlike most transsexuals. That's not an indictment of your template, just a note in support of my puzzlement about why it was created; I agree with Alice that its purpose seems to be to give more of a legitimate dress to a fringe theory, and I agree with Geo guy that it serves no useful purpose (to most of us). Dicklyon (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Mr Lyon I am a transsexual woman. You say I typically take the sexologist side eh? Do you remember that when you I AJ and James cantor were discussing "self published sources" and the concept that transsexuals are experts on transsexuality what side was I on. I recall that I argued quite vociferously that transsexuals ourselves are experts on transsexuality and as such things we write about ourselves are admissiable here on wikipedia. James Cantor and others argued against Me AJ and you on that point and they carried the day. (Don't confuse that with the issue of "Madeline Wyndzen" and Genderpsychology.org. In that case I don't think that an annoymous persons webpage should be given the weight of someone who is willing to stand by their words and take the heat.)
The result of decisions like that SPS one and wikipedia policies on what kind of sources are "reliable". Sources that are published in journals or books or websites of people who have published in journals. That acts to naturally bias these articles in favor of the voices of sexologist, and other behavioral scientist, who study the topic formally, and publish in such journals. Weather they are for or against this theory that is the result of that decision and established policy.
When it comes down to brass tax I don't at all agree with Dr. Blanchard's hypothesis. I do think that his observations cannot be denied they are what they are and I have seen the same behavior. That cannot be ignored and a big crack in the TS community painted over either. I have my own ideas about how transsexual brains work. Homosexual_transsexual#Pre_2003 Dr. Benjamins' quote on the homosexuality of transsexuals is almost exactly how I think.
But again those things have nothing to do with this template and perhaps would be better on my talk page.
As for the existance of a template like this, or of a good looking(?) article on WP making a topic look more legitimate I don't see how. In my opinion having good looking articles on wikipedia could only legitimate wikipedia. Having someone come away from a wikipedia article of reasonable length thinking and feeling that they have a pretty good grasp on a complex topic like this. That would not and could not legitimate or delegitimate a hypothesis like that of Dr. Blanchards.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Templates heighten the profile of articles and help guide readers to larger issues and the structure of organization behind them. Your purpose, from my reading of your posts, was to help tie these articles together in a meaningful way which is fine but something for which our categories are more suited - even then it needs to be done neutrally. A category that ties these articles to "sexology scandal" is less NPOV than "sexology". If each of these articles is that relevant to the others they will be appropriately wikilinked so that readers can follow those links if they want to read about, for instance, the other two people of the trio. Your intent to tie all these articles together is fine - using a template for that isn't. Fringe theories have a home on wikipedia but we clearly state "___ is a fringe theory" and use reliable sourcing to explain why it is one and who ascribes to it. -- Banjeboi 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really. I don't think that Dr. Balanchard meets the strict idea of what is a fringe theory on wikipedia based on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Notability_versus_acceptance and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Sufficiently_notable_for_dedicated_articles. I think it is appropriate to refer the issue of the fringeness or non-fringeness of BBL theory to WP:FT/N. However, looking at the actual text of WP:FRINGE as well as Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases#Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases#Neutral_point_of_view_as_applied_to_science, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases#Neutral_point_of_view_2, and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases#Questionable_science. That last point by the ArbCOM makes me think that all we should do with these articles is mention that Dr. Blanchard's theory is considered pseudoscience by some. However the article that is really at the epicenter Homosexual transsexual is about an idea, an observation, that was made long before blanchard. Again Dr. Harry Benjamin, a founder of sexology, makes mention of it in his quoted qualified criticism of the notion. I will do that now.--Hfarmer (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to look at not only the strict letter of the rule but also the spirit behind why we have these policies. We are educating by sharing knowledge, it does no one a disservice to point out that something is considered a fringe theory. Per WP:Fringe "All significant views should be represented fairly and without bias, in proportion to their prominence." Clearly these subjects have reached a notability threshold the issue is how we are now presenting them. If the vast majority of researchers, professionals and members of the trans communities find a theory controversial or fringe then the lede of relevant article(s) should clearly state that. Confusing and conflating the issues not only lowers that article quality it repels the very readers who may benefit the most from understanding a subject, why it's notable and why it remains controversial. Some subjects simply have to written at a heightened technical or scientific level - these subjects have been written about on a more accessible level and we should follow that lead. We are here to serve our readers, impediments to their understanding a subject, including notability and controversies should be removed. -- Banjeboi 21:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. See what I have done to the article Homosexual transsexual and will soon do likewise to the articles on BBL theory based on our discussion. You see people all someone had to do is have an actual civil discussion instead of having to accuse me of breaking and entering, or being Alice Dreger or some other rank nonsense like that.
There is one problem with you find "vast Majority" it includes transwomen. On the talk page of "The Man Who Would be Queen" a long discussion and I think even a formal mediation or something was held wherein the issue of weather or not the transsexual public counts as experts. Who's opinions can be cited and given weight. Weather or not a self published source by a transsexual can be used in this decision making process and so forth. I argued that transsexuals should be considered experts on transexuality and I along with Dick Lyon, and AJ and others lost that fight. It is a standing, citeable, and lamentable point of consensus here on wikipedia that transsexuals who have not studied formally and published in an RS are not experts on transsexuality.* That was a time where I was on their side; how soon they forget.
If you disinclude the transwomen then your vast majority...it's not quite so vast. I can cite 7 sexologist and other researchers who have specifically published on this topic or an allied topic who do not agree that this is strictly fringe science. Yolanda L.S. Smith a, Stephanie H.M. van Goozen, A.J. Kuiper, Peggy T. Cohen-Kettenis. Add Blanchard, Bailey, lawrence, Zucker, and others and you do not have a fringe group. Two or three people on that list are working on the American Psychological Soceities "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" five (DSM-V) in regards to transsexualism and gender identity disorder.Page 17 They are hardly fringe kooky people, or "Lone gunmen" who conspiratorlize about who killed JFK and alien abduction. They have been asked to write part of a book described in many places as the bible of psychology.
  • Even though IMO the opinions of informed transsexuals ought to have been included the bare fact is that there are many transsexuals out there who hate BBL theory, Hate Bailey, and think the people he wrote about were all a bunch of unrepresentative perverted freaks. They think those things but have done no studying of their own, they think that out of ignorance. I'm not talking about the Connway's and James's of the world. I have seen websites that claim that the theory in the man who would be queen was formulated by Bailey in a gay bar while drunk (serious no kidding believed that not just sarcasm). I have even met a very educated person, who had access to a copy of TMWWBQ, never read it but hated it and thought horrible things about the people in it. They did not even know the book's events took place in Chicago! So perhaps we transsexuals are all experts on transsexuality, but that does not make one a learned expert on science, gender theory, or a book. Only study can do that. What does any of this have to do with a template? --Hfarmer (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

outendenting. Would you agree to refer this to the Fringe theories notice board? If I do it it will be called forum shopping or whatever but I just don't think cluttering up this page with further discussion of somethint not really related to the template is really needed. (In the process perhaps transferring what has been written to that page). If not that's ok too.--Hfarmer (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. A claim you made that I missed. You write "If the vast majority of researchers, professionals and members of the trans communities find a theory controversial or fringe then the lede of relevant article(s) should clearly state that." If you read Wikipedia:Rs#Consensus there has to be a reliable source as defined by wikipedia policy which says that it is fringe. Believe me or not I am looking for that source. Otherwise writing that it is fringe is WP:POV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. What I have been able to support is the statements that some scientist question the theory. To take the step and say that constittes that it is almost universally considered fringe work is not supportable with sources at this time. (Believe me or not I am looking for a source that says that. All google has found me is various blogs and personal websites which are not RS's by WP standards.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to try to lightly step through all this ... A biography on Jane Doe can cite her writing and interviews about herself as one is considered an expert on oneself. This does not translate however that an X person is an expert on X where X can equal almost anything; an Italian is not an expert on Italy, a Catholic person is not an expert on Catholicism, etc. Certainly we do use our wp:Brain to exert some common sense but we also need to defer when that sense is called into question to seek some consensus. In regards to BBL theory and controversy et al, my process would be to dig up what other researchers and sexologists have brought forth and see what consensus they offer. There are several journals, such as Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality that cover the material - often quite dryly - and cast a more historical light on the issue. I found this overview a bit helpful (starting with the 5th paragraph - "In Bailey?s world there are only two kinds of transsexuals..."). It's pretty typical of what I've seen on the subject but I've hardly sought out everything that is printed. Hope this helps some. -- Banjeboi 02:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H, I chose my words carefully when I said that Hfarmer "typically takes one side in these wars." You are a bit of an anomaly, being a transsexual typically siding against most of the other transsexuals. But I didn't want to make a big deal of that, since I don't think being transsexual confers any special status on anyone on one side or the other of these viewpoints. I'm not sure what you're attacking me about. I admit to not liking your template very much, but I had just ignored it until now, as it was not one the bigger problems in this space. Now that it's come up, I voiced my opinion; I didn't expect you to like it, but no, I don't remember every little conversation you've been in or who "won", and I don't see why you're dragging this conversation off on tangents instead of talking about the template. And you seem to have gone nonlinear over DarlieB's recent innocent edits in this space, with reactions like this one; just settle down... Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, or replace with something better. Actually, I've been watching this discussion for two days, and I don't care one way or the other about this template, but I still find the nom's reasoning to be unbelievably weak. Pseudoscience and fringe theories shouldn't ever get navigational templates, and most especially not when mixed with articles on real subjects? Um, may I introduce you to {{Pseudoscience}}, the mother of all fringe-science templates, which cheerfully mixes general articles, organizations, and specific examples such as Dianetics and Astrology? How about {{AIDS}}, which includes a section on AIDS denialism? Shall we also delete {{Scientology}}, which names individual people associated with Scientology and its discredited "science" and its many scandals? As far as I can tell, the actual argument being put forth is "If we keep this template, then uninformed readers might have a handy way to find all the related articles, many of which currently present POVs that I personally disagree with." The solution to Benjiboi's complaint is to improve the articles, not to try to hide them from the readers. This is a navbox, not Wikipedia's stamp of approval. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually templates are a stamp of approval of sorts - displayed prominently to advertise them - in effect that those particular articles are so very important that the readers need to be alerted to them and how they fit together. Your examples show how templates should remain more neutral, and cover a subject area, not one controversial aspect of a subject. If we have dozens of articles about feminism - which we do - we organize the template to present an overview of the organization so readers can see there are history articles and all manner of subjects tied together. BBL theory is nowhere near that level of need; there is a main article, the spun-off controversy article, a book, the etiology one, several BLPs - almost always a bad idea for a controversy template - and generalized articles about the larger subject. Clean up the articles first then see if a template is even needed. Much of the organizing goals of the creator can be met through regular wikilinks and appropriate categories. In fact, this all will be more of a help if and when a template might truly be needed. -- Banjeboi 12:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Three comments:
        1. I do not agree that making related articles easy to find says anything about Wikipedia agreeing with the ideas presented in the articles.
        2. It appears that you agree that every article listed in the template (including the most prominent researchers and the activists most prominent in the scandal) connects logically to the subject.
        3. Is this template truly necessary? I don't know. But does it meet any of the four named criteria for deletion? No. It doesn't violate the namespace guidelines, it isn't redundant, it is used (although it's been removed recently from several articles on the specious grounds that the TFD is being discussed), and it violates no policies. Do you have any good reasons for deleting it? I don't think so. Is making it difficult for the general reader to find Autogynephilia from its counterpart article, Homosexual transsexual a service to the reader? Again, I don't think so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Creating a prominent template certainly suggests more than and different than a category or a regular wikilink would. No one is opposed to appropriate articles being included on other articles. It is the manner in which it was done. I'm not sure I agree that every article connects to the subject but these are certainly not a "series of related articles". If we had such a series there might be a logical reason to organize then and display them in this manner. Still not seeing it but once the articles are improved a bit that might be evident to everyone. Until then, no, not seeing the need. I think it does violate NPOV at the least. And I have no doubt that all the relevant articles will tie into one another although I'm not using that as a redundancy claim. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you explain exactly how you think it violates NPOV? It connects all the articles on the specific topic, and the bios of both the most prominent proponents and the most prominent critics. What's biased about that? (I see that another editor thinks that sticking to a narrow topic, instead of listing every possible article on transsexual sexuality, gives "undue weight", although I think that is flawed reasoning; it rather strikes me like saying that Template:Chickenpox is biased because it doesn't place that single concept in the larger context of Template:Medical conditions.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The chickenpox example also seems to be apples vs oranges. Is chickenpox a controversial theory? There is Thiomersal controversy which doesn't have it's own template but is listed along with other controversies in the vaccine template. BBL theory is a lone theory presented on its own as if it were the standard theory for this arena. Per NPOV we need to be "representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias" - this is only listing one view, disproportionately and in a bias manner, IMHO. -- Banjeboi 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Leaving aside the many controversies with chickenpox (which you can learn about if you read every article in that template), it appears that your position is that any template that presents all of the articles for this specific notion, but which does not present all of the articles for all of the other notions about sexuality among transgendered, is inherently biased. I do not agree: NPOV doesn't require the inclusion of every possible article in every template related to a very large area. But would you be happier if it were merged with {{Sexual identities}}? That template seems to have "accidentally" excluded all of these articles while including many of the other related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • You've just made my point. We don't have a template just on one controversial aspect of chickenpox but instead a neutral one that includes controversies. No one is suggestion that the bias is from simple omission as much as applying undue weight to this group of articles - including BLPs, which seems rather problematic - I remain utterly unconvinced that a template is needed at all. And no, {{Sexual identities}} doesn't need to be corrupted in this manner, either. Are any of these articles a sexual identity that would also be appropriate for that template - I'm not convinced of that either. Nor do I agree that some cabal has "'accidentally' excluded all of these articles". -- Banjeboi 21:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To User:Benjiboi Ah yes. IMO TG tapestery's overview is good. It's one of the better sources out there. You may find that some of the websites, and blogs out there have a very wrong version of facts. Many times a second or third hand account of what exactly is in the book. etc. Especially things written in the last couple of years. The man who would be queen is out of print. Though it is available on the web still, for a price. It was on the web for free for a long time. Since that was discontinued the ammount of first hand knowledge I see on many blogs has gone down.
As for how you say a self published source like the ones we are talking about should be used. I argued almost exactly that. Someone like Deirdre McCloskey, for example as learned as she is, is not a psychologist or any kind of scientist for that matter so she cannot be an expert commentator on the science. However she should be an expert on her and other transsexauls reactions or thoughts or feelings about it. Right? Apparently not. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deirdre McCloskey would be an expert on herself and, apparently, applied economics. If she discusses her reactions or thoughts it may be reliable depending on what the context of her statement and how we are using it. It's not always black and white that source X is or isn't reliable but what we are sourcing and did we correctly encapsulate what the source has stated - that is, did we represent their ideas correctly - and do so neutrally. The more controversial a subject, or heated the editing, the better the sourcing should be. -- Banjeboi 12:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Reliability_of_Articles.2C_Commentaries.2C_etc._that_appear_in_a_Scientific_Journal. is where the discussion took place on this topic. Read it for yourself it is quite long and even formulating how to ask the question was a long complicated mess in it's own right. The result of that ordeal which was too long and painful to repeat was that those peer commentaries are SPS's unreliable and that simmilar self published things by transsexuals about the science of transsexuality are not admissiable. Consider why it is those sources would be included in this context here. As a way of bolstering the idea that Blanchard's theory is not just scientifically questionable but that it is in fact a scientificcally kooky fringe crakcpot theory of a Canadian crank. May I ask if I am misinterpreting your position. But do you agree now that the opinions of the effected community are not admissable as scientific evidence that a theory is bad.
I am about to make an analogy that I know is not totally apt. But it is safe to say it is just as controversial and the affected community does not feel it represents their identities or beliefes etc. etc. Much the way transsexuals feel about BBL theory. That theory is Human evolution. It is similar to BBL theory ONLY in terms of it's controversy. It's detractors try to get elected to school boards in places like Kansas and get their particular religions POV taught as science. BBL's detractors try their best to water down every source that refer's to it in any way but the resoundingly negative. This may seem like a stretch because I am sure many of us here would view religious young earth creationist as crackpots, presumably homophobic and such. The facts remain they are in no more of a position to scientifically criticize evolution than we are to independently criticize BBL theory. HOWEVER unlike BBL theory there are enough serious scientist we can quote who have reservations. But they don't make the claim that it is fringe. Furthermore the people who have done research in support of BBL theory are not out on the fringe of psychology. They are writing the DSM.
Are we now done with the hyperbolic statements about how horrible this theory is, and unreasonable personal accusations against me now?--Hfarmer (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would take it as a case by case basis. Just as we often qualify other sources as to who stated what we could likely do so if the content added to our reader's understanding of the subject. In your example I think you mean creation-evolution controversy, I don't think it is an apt example because we generally don't have major religious texts explaining the sexualities of transgender people; how they were created, evolved, miracle etc etc. Creationism is also been around since the beginning of recorded history whereas BBL theory is rather new, scientifically speaking. The rest of this is likely better suited for the appropriate articles. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood. BBL theory is the unpopular scientific theory. The critics of BBL theory are the ones who act like creationist. For the most part as you have discovered they are non scientist or people who are scientist in unrelated fields trying to dictate the direction of sexology. That's it. You people are now free, for at least a couple weeks to turn the WP articles on this into another bile filled joke full of lame attempts to smear people even when those smears would backfire if you thought about them just a little more. (Talk to DickLyon about that.) Rest assured I will be back to repair your damage. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone asks, I'll have to confess to being clueless. What are you going on about? It seems then that the POV you prefer is that sexology is science, or sexologists are scientists; that's an OK POV, but not the only sensible one. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have only peripheral experience in trying to evaluate sources for some of these articles.. They have become the scene of extremely bitter disputes, because in some cases people react as if questioning of some particular theory amounts to a questioning of their personal sexuality. The sidebar introduces POV: it is unnecessary for those reading about the theory--anyone reading any of the specific article on the theory will be led to all of the others quickly enough from the cross references; its appearance on the others gives the mistaken impression that it is a unquestioned mainstream part of the general topics, or a major part of the significance of all the individuals. Sidebars and editorial apparatus cannot express nuances, so it is better not to use them in cases like this. As for what theory or theories may be right, I do not think that either this discussion or Wikipedia in general is the place to decide.DGG (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explaination of above changed vote. I have changed my own mind in the course of this discussion. The discussion I have just had here with Banjeboi. The problems here are problems that could have been hashed out on the talk page of the template. Instead of having a discussion like the one above. We just get this sort of end run around procedure. Looking to avoid having to compromise a solution and just going for the result they desire. Recent and related actions and discussions with Dick Lyon on the NOR/N notice board should show the mindset at work here is one that for the most part does not actually give a crap about the integerity of wikipedia.(Wikipedia:NOR/N#The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen) A mindset that is all about simply defacing these articles of their valueable information. Making the articles small, poor, bad, and ugly. In accord with how they percive the subject the articles report on. Even when that information removed is a detriment to the position they have they will want to remove it if it even gives a whiff of credibility to their "opponents". Everyone is either a proponent or an opponent to them leaving no room for free or independant thought let alone actual neutrality! The only "opponent" that I have any respect for here has take leave. I don't blame her. All I wanted was to make a good comprehensive set of articles here so that disucssions that happen elsewhere can be from a position of informed inteligent conversation, not disinformation or rumors. This template helps that, it makes a wikipedia article that much more understandable, That's all it does!--Hfarmer (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We'll have to agree to disagree. If I saw these issues as just things that needed to be fixed I would have gone that route and have done so before. I encourage improving the articles so they make more sense to everyone and perhaps there will actually be so many to constitute a series and the need for an organizing template. We just aren't there as of yet. -- Banjeboi 23:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Template violates WP:NPOV by framing a controversial topic to reflect a specific point of view. Gives undue weight to one of many obscure attempts at classification of transsexuals. Template was created by User:Hfarmer, an editor whose self-identity is based on this taxonomy and whose tenacious POV-pushing is evidenced above (and soon below) this comment. Template is part of a long-running attempt to use Wikipedia to legitimize these controversial concepts. Any related articles can be linked in the body of the article, under a "See also" section, and/or as "main article" links at the top of each subsection. Disclosure: User:Hfarmer has added me as one of the "personalities" in the template, so I am abstaining from voting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokestress (talk • contribs) 21:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about the template bringing more visibility to Dr. Blanchard's theory. Since to see the template someone has to look for and find the article by themselves. Which implies that anyone who sees the template already knows about the topic. Likely a topic the found out about elsewhere on the web. The template does not attract attention it merely organizes the cross links that exist between the articles. It not incidentally also links to the more mainstream articles (in which it does not appear) so it can actually direct people to other theories about transsexualism and gender identity. --Hfarmer (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outendenting) I think it is through all of this discussion what most of the arguement here boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT deletion arguement. They don't like some aspect of the subject, or in "Alice J Markham"'s case she is enraged that I would not play along with something she admits is a part of her fantasy female life. (sort of WP:IDONTLIKEYOU if you will. ) They dressed the arguement up in a tuxedo but that is the basic substance of the arguement. Within that I have refuted the claim that this is just a fringe theory (as it is supported by a number prominent psychologist not just at the one institute) that the articles have POV and ownership issues. Other actions of some of those complaining show what their idea of neutral is. The removal of the job title and affiliation of someone they call a "proponent" of Blanchard's theory. While keeping in long titles for people who they would categorize as "critics". " Christine Burns of Press for Change, Karen Gurney of the Australian W-O-M-A-N Network, and Executive Director Monica Casper of the Intersex Society of North America.[31]" and such. DickLyon called such POV editing a good step. Toward's what? Their idea of "neutrality". :-\ (people who are true "proponents" have done things just as destructive). The WP:OWN issue, I never stopped anyone from working on this template or any article. Nor have I discouraged anyone. It all comes down and back to the dressing up of an idontlikeit arguement. For that reason please keep this template. That arguement is recognized as not being a justification for deltion of content.--Hfarmer (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Arguments both for and against deletion that are not based in policy are generally ignored. If any of these articles came up for deletion I will stand firm that they all seem to be notable enough. The issue at hand is whether this template should remain. Other editing issues on each article may have a bearing on this discussion but generally thi needs to stay on point. -- Banjeboi 21:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since two editors have expressed concerns about errors of omission, I spent a few minutes looking for other articles on the (broader) subject of Classification of transsexuals (an article that has been systematically excluded from all TG-related templates and major articles like Transsexual sexuality. Perhaps I've just missed them, but the only partly related article I found was Benjamin Scale. So apparently the complaint here is "Navboxes aren't supposed to include redlinks, and I wish lots of other articles existed so that hypothetical competing theories could be listed." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles and templates certainly can contain redlinks but within reason. We should realistically expect a redlinked article to be about a notable subject worthy of an article. On a template a redlink should reasonably fit in the series of articles the template presents and would make sense to our readers. An example would be president of country X where we have articles for the 1st, 2nd and 4th but not the 3rd. It would seemingly be fine to infer that the 3rd in that series is also notable and that an article is imminent. If unsure it may make sense to build a stub to ensure the article is started. -- Banjeboi 21:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which explains why WP:NAV#Properties says "Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles" (emphasis in the original)? But I'm even having trouble figuring out what the other articles would be (although we're routinely told that some unspecified "other theories" exist and are preferable). Perhaps you'd like to start a few stubs? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • From what I've experienced there is enmity galore so, thanks but no thanks. -- Banjeboi 07:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure POV fork, contains numerous articles that should be deleted too and some that should be merged. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A POV fork indicates that there are related articles that are being excluded (as opposed to simply being a collection of articles about a narrow subject). Can you identify what the excluded articles are? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which ones should be deleted?--Hfarmer (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see allot of WP:VAGUEWAVE being used on this matter as well. Along with the afore mentioned dressed up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I mean really now this is not just about the template but about delting a whole block of articles?--Hfarmer (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be true that WP:VAGUEWAVE has been employed but drilling down to explain the policy concerns has also occurred. Countering with WP:IDONTLIKEIT also will likely be ignored as I've previously explained. -- Banjeboi 07:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Drilling down has occurred but as for those who wish to delete this template you are the only one who has attempted to have an actual discussion. The only one who has tried to justify things. Just saying "pure POV fork" this is FRINGE, and OR, etc with no further explaination is vague wave. On the other hand most other arguments for deletion speak of how offended a person is by the title of the article. That's pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. On the other hand my claims are always backed up with copuios RS citations, and arguement. i.e. claiming this is fringe science when three of the prime movers behind Dr. Blanchard's theory are involved in writing the DSM of the APA. In psychology one does not get much more authoratative. I also don't think the side that I and whatamIdoing happen to be on in this discussion is being ignored by whoever is monitoring this. If it was just a matter of a popular vote (the way things used to be done around here) your side would have won already. The reasons given just aren't that compelling. Heck the fact that the articles are so controversial and generate so much interest juding by their hits is just more reason to have really good articles. That are really neutral, which does not mean unduely slanted either way, reliably sourced, and well writen without being to highbrow for the average reader.--Hfarmer (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't take deletion lightly and work to avoid it when possible. Deletion discussions don't alwyas drill to details as much as people generally weigh in and offer some insight. On many articles for deletion we're hoping that someone who is relatively up on the subject can offer insight - is subject X notable and is our article worthy of keeping for clean-up; sources available etc. or in the larger picture, no, not notable or fixable etc. We are all volunteers and lengthy discussions often repel the very people who may otherwise be best at helping on a given situation. As previously stated, basic IDONTLIKEIT and ILIKEIT opinions are noted and given due weight. That everyone isn't offering up continual and detailed explanations isn't an indication that their concerns aren't valid as much as their level of passion is only so high on this particular XfD. As the nom I feel it's my duty to address concerns the same as if I were the main proponent who had rewritten an article for deletion and, for example, was explaining queer vs. LGBT or intersex vs. transman for someone who may not be aware and think these were always interchangable. I fully support the articles existing and improving and would defend their existence if that matter was brought up. -- Banjeboi 23:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"We are all volunteers and lengthy discussions often repel the very people who may otherwise be best at helping on a given situation." So what is this now? I should just shut up and let this be a popular vote. This is meant to be a discussion not a vote. Again your faction in this case simply makes claims of fringeness, and non neutral framing etc. (by the by did you see my gag rendition of this templte before it was deleted?) But you never really back it up you just make a claim. I say again I have backed up my position that this is not fringe kooky science adhered to by a couple of people at one clinic in Canada. This is a theory that must be taken seriously, even as it's use of terminology is and has been questioned because of the prominence given it's proponents. Having Zucker, Blanchard, and Cohen-Kettenis on the DSM working group has to be looked at as a tacit recognition of their work on this very theory. As for the neutrality of the framing. I don't know what to say. I don't see how that framing which gives great prominence to the controversy and the theory could not be neutral. I guess it's a matter of perceptions.--Hfarmer (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR is cyber-law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.30.129 (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WP:TLDR and in a nutshell - be concise for everyone's benefit. No one is stating that your opinion or ideas are bad or cannot be expressed here. What I was trying to relate is that lengthy and long-winded statements are routinely ignored. Expressly by those you are often trying to reach. Do with that what you will. If I have a faction, or a cabal, by the way, they've moved on to someone else. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving up I don't think we're going to find consensus here. The arguments to delete are weak, and the POVs are firmly entrenched. I'm taking this page off my watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully disagree. I think we've also uncovered part of the issue of why there may be enmity on this set of articles. These, IMHO, are related but separate issues. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly Banjeboi. Each article covers a separte but related part of this picutre. A sort of panoramic Mosaic of a wide vista of information. Each tree and building is separate but part of the big picture. Each of us sees this from a differnt angle so we argue. But WhatamIdoing is also right. The deletion arguements put forth, fringe, POV "framing" (WTH?), have been put forth and answered. By the by did any of you see the spoof template I made? The one with the framing I felt Jokestress would find more neutral. (I know you saw it WhatamIdoing.)--Hfarmer (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, we can agree to disagree here as well. Templates can include controversy but shouldn't be the source of them. This template includes items, like the BLPs that shouldn't be there, and misrepresents the importance and acceptance of the BBL theory. I remain convinced the template simply isn't needed as there really is a small number of articles that aren't really a series and are intertwined by wikilinks at a logical level already. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Benjiboi "misrepresents the importance and acceptance of the BBL theory. I remain convinced the template simply isn't needed as there really is a small number of articles that aren't really a series and are intertwined by wikilinks at a logical level already." -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You "remain" convinced. Did you comment earlier or what? How else could a user remain convinced?  :-\ :-/  :-|
Again we have been over the whole importance and notability thing. A fringe science no some of the use of terminology is questionable that all. Templates like this one mere organize a set of related articles. They say noting of importance. The BLP's in the template are of people who are widely known to be involved in the controversy around "The Man Who Would Be Queen". Which is a book that relied heavily on BBL theory. Last but not least TLDR (Too Lazy Didn't Read) is not an arguement against another person's arguement.--Hfarmer (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of the articles themselves has only so much bearing here, the issue is the template. And the book and BLP's are a sign that the template is been padded a bit, IMHO. TLDR, I believe, was directed at yourself and perhaps me as well in regards to keeping our comments more concise. -- Banjeboi 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2007 Port Adelaide Grand Final side edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete JPG-GR (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007 Port Adelaide Grand Final side (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unecessary template detailing members of the losing team of an AFL Grand Final. Allied45 (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I vote I want to ask for a wikilink to one of the articles this is in. I also want to know if you have a proposal for replaceing that template. I mean Should each BLP have a link in it in relation to this. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template is in fact only transcluded onto one article, Travis Boak. I do not plan to replace this template, it is the only template that details the members of a runners-up team in a grand final. The neccessity of having this template has previously been briefly discussed at WP:AFL
Delete The prupose of templates is to organize all the information in many articles and make it as easy to find as possible. This template being on only one article means that it is not being used in that way. Thus.. --Hfarmer (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_17&oldid=1146591116"