Template talk:Ron Paul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


Where exactly was the previous TFD debate which prompted this speedy deletion? ViperSnake151 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_26#Template:Ron_Paul. The concerns in the TfD were that irrelevant articles were being linked from the template: these concerns do not apply here. It is ridiculous to claim that the current version is "substantially identical" to the deleted version. Skomorokh 17:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge from {{RonPaul}}[edit]

It seems clear that {{RonPaul}} is in spirit a repost of the deleted version of this template. I propose we redirect that page here as there is nothing I can see worth merging. Skomorokh 02:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well hi and thank you! Please comment on the below topic, which is the one linked from the merge templates. JJB 02:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

 Done Skomorokh 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Meseems the template "RonPaul" was created as a content fork of this one, and that discussion and consensus has not taken time to gel as both templates have been recommended for deletion. Merge proposal is the obvious solution. The questions are:

  • Is the topic "Ron Paul movement" or "Ron Paul Revolution" sufficiently different enough from the topic "Ron Paul" to merit two separate templates?
  • Are any of those topics variegated enough to merit even one template?
  • If one template, should it be horizontal or vertical?
  • Also if one template, what articles should be included or excluded?

It appears there have been long and short article lists vying in an editing "cold war". Let's agree on a list here. Thanks! JJB 02:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've merged in content from the other template that mentions Paul. Some of it doesn't and some of the stuff in the other template doesn't exist. Buspar (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! It appears that you and me and SteveSims (creator of RonPaul) favor the long version. Want to see if that is a clear consensus or if there are some reasons stated for the short version. JJB 06:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Which are you referring to long and which as short? I prefer the "Ron Paul" version, not the "RonPaul" version. "Ron Paul" template slips easier at the end of articles. Buspar (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A difference between early short and long versions appears here. I am calling "Ron Paul" horizontal and "RonPaul" vertical. Though I also favor a long horizontal template, I would be willing to have a minimum inclusion standard as something like "article must mention Paul significantly". JJB 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The vertical (RonPaul) template is impractical when there are large tables and boxes at the beginning of an article, so it's good to have a horizontal (Ron Paul) template too. This one isn't as good for more notable Ron Paul-associated articles since it's used at the very bottom. SteveSims (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the vertical template is unnecessary, and that it has no useful content to be merged with the horizontal. The main reason for my saying this is the lack of the staple "Ron Paul movement" article. If there is a "Ron Paul movement" in the future and it has its own symbol or flag then the template should be reassessed, but this is far too early to be tacking the vertical template onto articles, especially if good content at the top of the article is removed to make room. If the result of the discussion is keep [the vertical], then I suggest the template developers make some aesthetic changes to have it dominate less of the article. Having a show/hide format can help, see Template:Anarchism sidebar.

  • Is the topic "Ron Paul movement" or "Ron Paul Revolution" sufficiently different enough from the topic "Ron Paul" to merit two separate templates?
    • No / Not yet.
  • Are any of those topics variegated enough to merit even one template?
    • Yes, that would be Ron Paul.
  • If one template, should it be horizontal or vertical?
    • Horizontal
  • Also if one template, what articles should be included or excluded?
    • Only those that have to do with Paul, his legislation and his family. Look at the horizontal templates for the other Presidential candidates for ideas.

MantisEars (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The horizontal is more generally useful and articles like "Ron Paul Movement" or Revolution are premature. Wait a year or so for secondary sources to accrue before attempting them so they can be written in a neutral manner. Buspar (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to announce this as early consensus favoring merge at the TFD. The only dissent is from RonPaul creator SteveSims, and apparently only on the reason that a template should be higher up on the articles without large tables and boxes at top. At risk of misrepresenting this position, it seems to me that the articles without other conflicting tables/boxes are generally short enough that the vertical has no real advantage over the horizontal because there is not much placement difference, and placement difference is not a tremendous keep argument anyway in terms of the overall redundancy. With thanks to the (positive and negative) publicity this new template gave to the articles, I think it is time to close and merge. JJB 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Side note: since Buspar originally userfied the deleted "Ron Paul Revolution" article (its new location was subsequently deleted by Guy), I also find it significant that Buspar and I both agree with RPR waiting dormant until we have enough neutral secondary sources. I think they will arise but it may be too early to press them yet. Users minded toward such content might try improving The Revolution: A Manifesto instead. JJB 16:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in rather late, but I support the horizontal version with a limited number of articles, and letting the TfD's run their course. Skomorokh 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, my main reasoning for two templates is for articles where the only one template is suitable. For example, Gecko seems to have problems rendering pages with lots of tables on the same side but in different subsections.
Also, though the vertical template may not be as useful as the horizontal one is now, like you said, it may be useful in a year so we shouldn't cause future editors grief by deleting it and having them have to deal with template issues when the Ron Paul articles are expanded. SteveSims (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've merged them as the sidebar was only being used in two articles, both of which also had the footer. Skomorokh 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we describe legislation/campaigns as "failed"?[edit]

User:Vissud has repeatedly altered the template so that the legislation and or campaigns of Paul are appended with "failed". That they were not successful is, as Vissud remarks, a matter of fact. However, including this information in the template does not seem to be in keeping with neutral point of view. {{Hillary Rodham Clinton}} does not describe her campaign as failed. This template is intended as a navigational aid only; it does not seem to be in keeping with the purpose of directing readers to Paul-related articles to include this "failed" comment. Thoughts? Skomorokh 21:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The template is a navigational aid, and the legislation articles linked from it are very much relevent to Ron Paul. Also, as you pointed out, it is not standard procedure on Wikipedia to refer to refer to campaigns as "failed" or "successful" in titles, as evidenced by the many campaign articles/templates which mantain neurtrality in the titles. A possible compromise solution, if there is be one, might be labeling the appropriate section "proposed legislation". That's as far as I'd willing to take it, and reluctantly at that.--JayJasper (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)