Template talk:Nonnotable

I object to the use of this template on article pages. I do not see a point of it that cannot be addressed by leaving a message on the talk page. I would not necessarily object to it being a talk-page only template.--Eloquence* 16:02, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * But it's not addressed to existing editors, it's addressed to readers. Few readers of WWikipedia look at discussion pages (I never did until I got involved in editing).  This is an invitation to the casual reader to add more information if they know it, and thus makes more sense on the article page.  (See Talk:Unencyclopedic, though, for more general discussion.) Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If I visit a page through a link or from a search engine, then I don't want to read about Wikipedia's internal debates on whether the subject of the article is notable or not, I don't want to be asked to add information, I want to read the actual article. This template does not help me do that. It is far too vague to be useful to a reader ("may not be .. may be .."), and as it is, does nothing but add clutter to the page.--Eloquence* 20:13, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is a matter of opinion, of course. I note that you're also trying to stop the use of the "unencyclopedic" template, despite the fact that it was put forward for deletion and survived. If you think that this template should be deleted, why don't it put it forward for deletion, and find out whether there's consensus among fellow editors? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 21:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to introduce a new tag into the article namespace, then first there needs to be consensus for the use of the tag. If that is not the case, then the template may very well continue to exist, but it cannot be used -- just like a proposed policy may very well exist without being used, e.g. Remove personal attacks. The question whether a template should be deleted is independent from the one whether it should be used, just like the question whether a policy page should be deleted is independent from the one whether the policy in question should be adopted. An asymmetric relationship between adoption and removal of templates is not desirable, as it would lead to template overkill.--Eloquence* 22:17, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Use and existence may be formally separate, but are you really claiming that editors who vote that a template be kept are not (strongly) implying that it may be used? If so, on what basis do you make that claim? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not the point. The point is that deletion requires consensus. 3 people vocally supporting a template on the deletion page may prevent it from being deleted, but it there are 3 other people vocally opposing it, then it should not be used either until those objections are resolved (numbers are arbitrary, in both cases, consensus should be sought).--Eloquence* 22:51, May 4, 2005 (UTC)