Template talk:Dan Savage

Removal of Santourm
I'm confused by the removal of the word from this template. I supported the removal from the sexual slang template. However, none of the logic seems to hold for removal on this template. There's no issue about whether the word is a coinage of Savage (unlike the situation where on the sexual slang template where there's minimal evidence of the term actually being used) and the other distinctions don't apply. Since it seems pretty clear that there's a consensus to keep the article, this removal doesn't make sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Josh, the issue is that several templates were recently created at once in a way that gave Wikipedia the appearance of actively spreading the term. I'm therefore requesting that it be left off these templates until that issue is resolved. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a huge template under Larry Niven. Does that promote the author?  Probably.  Was it written by fans.  Probably.  Should we delete it and leave the articles minimally connected?  I don't think so.  We probably have tens of thousands of templates like that about well known authors.  Dan Savage is a well known author.  And if listing his works is "promotion" then it's a kind of promotion we should put up with, same as all the others. Wnt (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And we have a further problem. KoshVorlon just removed the link also to the Santorum controversy as an attack page. Kosh's actions seem to be being quite disruptive at this point. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Josh, could you respond to the point I made earlier? Several templates were recently created at once to house this term, in a way that gave Wikipedia the appearance of actively spreading it. I'm therefore asking that it be left off these templates until that issue is resolved. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi SlimVirgin, would a consensus by editors of this template on the inclusion or exclusion of the neologism prevent you from removing it again? Gacurr (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that. I don't think it is terribly relevant in so far as the user in question (Cirt) made a large set of edits related to Savage, which included these templates. In the process the word in question was added. I don't see any strong argument to leave it off this template, and I don't see why the default would be to leave it off this template, given that the end result is almost certainly going to include it in this template. Moreover, until issues are resolved in an almost hopelessly vague standard given how the situation is currently progressing. That could take weeks or months. I don't see why the default direction would go towards removal in that timespan. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you can know that "the end result is almost certainly going to include it in this template," when 50 editors so far have asked that the article be merged into another one, and the issue is before the ArbCom. The default with BLP is often to leave things out of articles/templates until the issue is decided. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfC for merging has a clear majority against merging. Yes, there are fifty in favor of merging, but there are 70 against. Moreover, for quite some time now the difference has consistently put the oppose ahead of the support. The merger is dead in the water. As to the ArbCom- they haven't accepted the case (currently at 3/3/2/2) and if they do, are unlikely to make strict content rulings. And yes, while for BLP issues we generally have a default of leaving information out, that's for information in articles. That's a very different claim than leaving it off of a template where the claimed problem is purely Google juice. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As you know these things are not about numbers, but about arguments, and that's something the closing admin(s) will look at. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Numbers certainly do matter for deciding consensus although yes strength of arguments matters a lot. I'm puzzled- if you think numbers matter very little or not at all, I'm not sure why you mentioned the fact that 50 people supported the merger. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it's significant. Where it's 5 for, and 10 against, the 10 win. But where there's a substantial number for, including very experienced editors, and there are BLP concerns, no admin will look at numbers alone. You are right that the numbers may prevail. My point is only that there are other factors too. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm too much of a mathematician, without as much understanding of human psychology, but I would think that in a situation with 5/7 as opposed to 50/70 the arguments should matter more in the first case, because it isn't as clear that the difference in numbers is statistically significant. For the same ratio of disagreement, larger numbers should make argument matter less not more. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not up to either of us. My only point is that the issue isn't decided, and therefore I think we should err here on the side of caution. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think for now we should err on the side of caution, and leave it off. If we retain an article on the santorum campaign, and name it accordingly, then it should be added to the template; the campaign is among Savage's more notable activities. -- J N  466  14:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)