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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Maintained (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Despite the good intentions of this template, it's too close to promoting ownership of articles. Anyone who is truly active in maintaining and improving the article will be listed in the recent history. — John Reaves (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence that this template has caused problems. --JWSchmidt 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable request. But I'd also like to see evidence that this template has benefited Wikipedia. Hesperian 01:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the original deletion request for the evidence of its actual benefits in practice. Where is your evidence of misuse? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 03:54Z

No one is claiming misuse. John Reaves (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everyone is claiming that it can be misused for WP:OWN, but nobody has evidence that this actually occurs. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 21:47Z

If half the people on this TFD feel that the template implies a degree of ownership, doesn't it make sense, in the absense of other data, to assume that half the newbs who see it for the first time might feel the same way? Hesperian 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would make sense is Wikipedia is a democracy, but that's not the case. I can't stop people from drive-by-voting when they should be discussing the issue. As a result this TFD has numerous votes with no rationale or discussion to back them up. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 13:00Z

You're bidding against yourself, mate. These so called "drive-by" voters, whom you contend have examined this issue only superficially, are the closest thing we have to an insight into the behaviour of newbs. If a brief and superficial examination of the template leaves so many people thinking it implies ownership, doesn't it make sense, in the absense of other data, to assume that newbs who see it for the first time would think the same? Hesperian 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming that drive-by-voters, as your argument requires them to be, are not just drive-by-deletionists. I believe many are voting based on the simple word "maintained". If they had read the text of the template itself (as people viewing a talk page would), they would realize that it does not imply ownership. If they had read the template guidelines, it would be blindingly obvious this is not the case as well. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 13:25Z

Well, it looks like at least one useful finding might come out of this debate: the title "maintained" is misleading, since it makes people think this template implies ownership, which is not intended. It is indeed fortunate, then, that most newbs don't see the template title. But that shouldn't stop us from seeking a more appropriate title, should this template be kept. Hesperian 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me, I'm all for clarity. I think there was a discussion about the name before, and Maintained was chosen. Any suggestions? ((Contacts))? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 13:47Z

Then again, the word "maintained" occurs in the template text too. So if "maintained" is making people see red over WP:OWN, then it should be removed too. You seem to be of the view that the only real use of this template is to provide a point of contact, so why not rewrite the template to "The following people may be able to answer questions about the content and sources of this article"? ((Contacts)) is a satisfactory title. Hesperian 23:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the template is also to let people know that there are users reverting vandalism on the article, maintaining its quality. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-23 01:59Z

There no longer seems to be any dispute over the proposition that "maintained" implies article ownership for a significant proportion of viewers of the template. It therefore seems to me that it is simply irresponsible to retain it. If the word is meant to convey the fact that vandalism is being reverted, then why don't we change the template to say that certain users are active in reverting vandalism, and may be able to answer questions? I suspect your response will be along the lines of: it would look silly because people who are active in reverting vandalism aren't necessarily capable of answering questions, and vice versa. Which would only be confirmation that a template that attempts to convey both these things is poorly scoped. Either way, "maintained" needs to be eliminated. Hesperian 02:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I read the whole thing, and couldn't find anything that I would call "evidence of its actual benefits". All I could find was you claiming certain benefits for it, with no evidence. That was fair enough then, when the template was new. But now I want to know whether there is any evidence that this template is actually achieving anything desirable in offset to the problems I perceive with it. Hesperian 05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like reading through the whole thing again, but I found a quick example on the template talk page: Template_talk:Maintained#It_worked. I'm sure if you asked around, you'd find more examples, but simply saying that there are no benefits because you haven't bothered to ask anyone is nonsense. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 12:52Z

Also see the strong keep votes below for ample evidence of its benefits. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 17:42Z

I must say it's rather annoying that you sent me off to read the previous TfD, on what turned out to be a red herring, then couldn't be bothered reading it yourself, then accused me of "not being bothered". :-( If one speculative comment is the only evidence you have that this template is actually working, then you're "imagining" the benefits just as much was we're "imagining" the problems. So your numerous "where's your evidence" refutations are valueless. Hesperian 23:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I de-emphasised the words "strong keep" in your comment above, so that you don't unintentionally double vote. Hesperian 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One speculative comment? Did you read what I just said above? Read the strong keep votes below for the evidence you require. I've provided my evidence, now where's the evidence that is the very basis for this delete vote, and the basis for the majority of the drive-by-votes here? Any evidence of implied ownership or people getting confused? Any evidence of people misusing the template as a way to own an article (as if that were seriously possible...)??? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 13:03Z

For the love of god, will you please, please, stop shouting at everybody. Hesperian 13:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You called it emphasis, now you call it shouting. Which is it? Do you have any evidence of implied ownership, or people getting confused? Any evidence of people misusing the template as a way to own an article (as if that were seriously possible...)? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 13:20Z

P.S. Are the strong keep votes below enough evidence for you, or are they also speculative comments? What would be evidence for you? Why must I provide evidence to counteract a delete vote that has no evidence at its foundation? It would seem that someone wanting to delete something should have evidence to back up his reason for deletion before the deletion can even go forward. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 13:22Z

Comment: I originally created this template, and after a lot of discussion (and a deletion request), we agreed to the guidelines that needed to be specified in order to make it clear how the template works and what it implies. I've seen no evidence of misuse, only benefits. Of course, we can't stop people from ignoring the guidelines (as is the case for every rule on Wikipedia), but the Whatlinkshere makes it easy to track the template's usage and correct any problems that are found (have any been found?). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 04:10Z

Response: I more or less randomly picked an entry from whatlinkshere. Louis Pasteur is allegedly maintained by User:Magicmonster. He hasn't edited since January. He made some good, but not particularly extensive, edits to the article in December '05. In the fifteen months since then, three reverts and two typo fixes. No involvement in talk page discussion since November '05. Benefit of this maintained tag to Wikipedia? - Zero. Harm to Wikipedia? - Well, we could probably debate that until the cows come home; I will contend that the tag gives the impression that one is obliged to talk to Magicmonster before editing the article, and that this is a bad thing. Hesperian 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been understood that anyone should be removed if they haven't edited the article/talk in long time, as long as they're not experts or significant contributors to the article. I thought there used to be a guideline for that, but I've readded the guideline to make it clear. Do you have any examples of misuse for WP:OWN? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 13:16Z

Be so kind as to stop shouting at everybody. Hesperian 23:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence of misuse for WP:OWN? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 13:07Z

You're wasting your time repeatedly asking that question, because it begs the entire debate. For the record, yes I do have evidence. The template inherently violates WP:OWN, so every single application of that template is evidence of misuse per WP:OWN. Whereas you disagree. Which is the entire point of this debate. Hesperian 13:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, your evidence is that you've defined the template to violate WP:OWN, contradicting one of the guidelines in the template itself? What is your evidence that it violates WP:OWN? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 13:28Z

Comment In that case just remove the template from the talk page and leave a note on the user's talk page (although leaving a note on the user's talk page probably isn't even necessary if someone has edited it that rarely). There's still no evidence that this has ever proved harmful, you're basically stating your opinion that it might prove harmful, which looks just like a guess or an opinion of yours. Quadzilla99 04:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Certainly I am stating my opinion; and proponents of this template are stating theirs. Now how about some evidence that this template actually does something useful? Can you point to a corpus of positive outcomes, or are you "basically stating your opinion that it might prove [useful]"? Hesperian 04:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is turning into semantics, basically you believe that evidence should be provided that it's useful, while I believe evidence should be provided that it's harmful Let's just leave it at that. Incidentally, Brian seemed to say there was another AFD on this, a link to that should really be provided here. Quadzilla99 05:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. [1]. Hesperian 06:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added that tfd to the template's talk page. Quadzilla99 13:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not just for active contributors, but experts. If someone is not an expert and hasn't contributed to the article/talk in a long time, feel free to remove them from the template. The Pasteur example is not an example of misuse. Almost all of the delete comments here are about its alleged ability to be misused as WP:OWN, yet nobody has provided an example of this misuse. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 12:55Z

• Delete, I agree with the nom. What's the use in using the template when users can just check the page's history. I also agree with JWSchimdt, though. Where has it caused a problem? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be clear to editors how to check who has edited the page, but that's not the case for readers, and that's not the only point of this template. The template is supposed to be a quick link to people who either know a lot about the subject or who are watching the article and trying to keep the vandalism out. The history tells you none of this, especially if you're a reader (don't forget the # of readers on this site is much larger than the # of editors). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 04:00Z
• Delete. Misuse / potential for misuse grossly outweighs any potential benefit. Hesperian 01:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, now that the template has been rephrased to "The following users are interested in this topic...". Hesperian 23:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Where is your evidence for misuse? As for potential for misuse, that argument can be used to justify the deletion of anything. The template guidelines are there for a reason. The template's Whatlinkshere makes it easy to track how it is being used, and watch for misuse (and correct misuse as it is found). So do you have evidence of misuse? Otherwise, what substance was there to your reason for deletion? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 04:03Z
• Keep. There's not one bit of evidence this template has ever caused a problem. It's also very useful for obvious reasons. Quadzilla99 02:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, for full disclosure my name is in a maintained tag on Hakeem Olajuwon and Michael Jordan, however the template was added there by other users who knew I worked heavily on the articles, and who also knew that I had added most of the sources contained in those articles (and therefore could be of help if a reader had any questions). Additionally, I added the template to Lawrence Taylor myself. Quadzilla99 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hints at WP:OWN, despite good intentions, just not acceptable. Even esperanza got deleted over good intentions --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 02:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines for the template make it clear that it can't be used for WP:OWN, so what is your reason for deletion? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 03:59Z
• Delete. I never really liked the ownership implied with this template, and it's also fairly often left even when users are no longer with the project. Good intentions, but not actually useful for anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No ownership is implied with the template. Read the guidelines. We can't stop people from ignoring the guidelines; but it's easy to watch who is using this template, to prevent misuse. So what is your reason for deletion? Have you read the original deletion request from long ago? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 03:59Z
    • Ownership is implied in the presence of the template. New users can easily see this template and take away from it that such-and-such users have some sort of authority on that talk page or over that article. I know it was my impression upon first seeing the template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is your argument based on? Imagined examples? Do you have evidence? Where in the template does it say someone has authority over anything? I think you're grabbing at straws here, unless you can show that people are being dissuaded from editing/discussing the articles in question, or that the wording includes any of the meaning that you claim it does. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 13:11Z
        • This is useless hectoring. Any further reply to these empty questions would be restatement of my points above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You say ownership is implied, but do not say how, or what fixes could be made so that it isn't implied. You also provide no evidence to back up your claim that new users are being dissuaded from editing due to the template. Your argument as it stands is empty of content. If you can provide any evidence, or explanation, or suggestions, maybe we can get somewhere, but right now you've just provided a delete vote. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 14:57Z
            • Directing users to contact specific users, instead of using the article talk page, not only misdirects users but also implies that the listed users have some sort of authority. "In case of problems, contact Foo Bar" implies that Foo Bar has some sort of authority. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Where does it say to contact specific users "instead of using the talk page"??? It doesn't say "in case of problems, contact ...". Besides, you've only attacked one purpose of the template, and only by redefining that purpose. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 16:39Z
• Strong neutral - I really like this template, and think that it's a great idea. It's devastating, though, to see that some people who have their name displayed have not edited in over a month. So I probably won't vote. If this template is going to be kept, it'll definitely need some maintenance. Gracenotes^T § 03:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — there is a difference between ownership and significant editing. Please cite evidence that this template has been a problem. — Deckiller 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite evidence that this template has helped Wikipedia? Hesperian 03:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the previous deletion request for that evidence. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 03:55Z
      • I found nothing. Hesperian 05:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't feel like reading through that whole thing again, but on the template talk page I found an example: Template_talk:Maintained#It_worked. I'm sure if you asked around you'd find more examples. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 12:50Z
          • But see my response above. Hesperian 23:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • See the strong keep votes below for your evidence. Now where's the evidence of misuse for WP:OWN? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 13:12Z
• Keep for the exact same reasons it was kept after the lengthy debate when it was up for deletion before. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 03:54Z
• Keep — While I understand the concerns about promoting article ownership, I believe it is quite beneficial in indicating who to contact regarding sources, if they are a relative expert on the subject and some clarification is needed or an article comes under GAR/FAR and there is a need to review the sources. WesleyDodds 04:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but reword. Used in hundreds of articles with, apparently, no reported problems. The problematic wording of the template (e.g. "active in maintaining") could certainly be improved to move it away from potential ownership issues. While it now reads:

  The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help.

It should really say something simpler and less problematic, like:

The following users are interested in this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources.

This also addresses the problem of editors who are knowledgeable about a topic but have perhaps not edited the article in awhile and may not be watching it closely, but who might be contacted in case there are important issues that crop up. The major contributors to an article aren't always easy to discern (especially by newbies) from the article's history, which may be clogged with vandals, vandal fighters, wikignomes, copyeditors, category updaters, etc. —Kevin 04:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A good intention but I can't see how its useful when the page history is available. There is an implied ownership which is antiwiki. A newbie seeing the list of maintainers would possibly be confused about ownership policy. Also, I know of one article that is regularly edited by a troublesome user who is convinced he owns that article. If he saw this he'd be onto it in a flash using it as further evidence that everything must be vetted by him. —Moondyne 05:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page history is for editors. Most people on Wikipedia are not editors, and won't understand the page history's purpose. Besides, the template is supposed to show experts and active/substantial contributors. The history tells you none of that. There is no implied ownership, as is clearly explained in the guidelines. Can you provide any examples of misuse of the specific kind you claim is implied? I don't understand how it is confusing. Nowhere does it say you have to ask before editing. It only says here are some people who can help with verification and sources. So far you've only imagined examples. Of course, we can't stop people from ignoring the template guidelines, but that's the case with every policy/guideline on Wikipedia. As such, we can correct problem users as they occur. Nobody has found any such problem users. Only imagined ones. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 13:06Z
    • "Most people on Wikipedia are not editors, and won't understand the page history's purpose." I don't understand your point. Isn't the whole idea of this template to guide editors? If they can navigate through the forest of templates on article talk page to actually see this template then it's likely they can also find the page history. And I never said it was confusing, just that a newbie may find it confusing. Surely you would concede that. Your badgering of every delete vote with the same arguments is not conducive to open discussion. Some potential participants in this discussion may be disinclined to do so if they think they're going to cop a reply from you. You've stated your arguments (over and over), so why not just let people give their own opinion without a mandatory response. —Moondyne 00:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template is not just for editors, but for readers who want to know how reliable the content they're reading is, and who they might contact about good references for the subject, and even experts on the subject. It has multiple purposes. As for my "badgering"", I thought the point of this was to have a discussion, not to allow people to apply the same evidence-lacking irrational claim for deletion without at least discussing the matter. Of course, most will never come back to this page, being satisfied that the word "maintained" means "owned", and that there must be nothing more to the matter. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 13:16Z

• Comment. ((ExpertContribution))

is a compromise as it is explicitly required to be added by others. —Moondyne 05:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The above has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Attribution. It's also irrelevant to the limply-worded Maintained template that a few people have bees in their bonnets about for no apparant reason but cluelessness. May be able to help with Wikipedia:Attribution is a very different story from whatever an "expert editor" thinks it is, or alleged "expert contributions" that I and others still have to verify; if the "expert editors" bother with any verification at all (and if they do then they need the Maintained template to document so). Editors are the #1 problem with Wikipedia (because they don't or can't figure out how to cite their sources and don't know what WP:NPOV-Wikipedia:Attribution-quality verification IS -- which is quite apparent from the babblings in this page section alone) or the #1 problem of Wikipedia wouldn't be that it's not considered to be a reliable source of information due to the lack of WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Attribution and alleged 'expert editors' can shove the above template up their arses because it states nothing about what, if anything they do or have ever done or ever will do to ensure that articles and verification observe WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Attribution. That's what the ((Maintained | ...)) template is for. —S-Ranger 00:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think a rewording would be better than an all-out deletion. The active contributors are often the ones you want to contact first for an article. bibliomaniac15 05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it makes things easier. For example, in the case of Strawberry Panic! I noticed that it had been put on GA hold for a couple of days, and the editor named in the template hadn't noticed. I wrote him a line telling him of the hold, and within a short time SP! was improved to GA status and is now a FAC. This is perhaps an 'evidence of usefulness', I think. Article history is often clogged with vandals etc. and it can be difficult to see who cited what from the page history. A reword may be in order, but I've found the maintained template useful. -Malkinann 09:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Helpful when the contributor listed in the template is needed for questions about print sources. ShadowHalo 10:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like many others, I think there are instances when a contributor may have subject matter expertise and history with an article that's helpful, but I agree that the wording may imply too much ownership. That said, it doesn't prevent anyone from adding to an article. One other compromise for this, or the "subject matter" alternative is a guideline that requires active participation for the tag to remain in place. Mattnad 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Anyone who has declared themselves as an active editor of the page, even if they haven't touched the article for a bit of time they can still help anyone who wants to become involved with the topic. This template is much easier to find those people than searching through an article's history to find the editor with the largest anount of constructive edits. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 13:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would certainly like to tag some of my darlings with this, but the more I think about it, the more it seems as a way of circumventing WP:OWN. It's a slippery slope of a template and it will be abused by people who enjoy caring their articles to death. Or even worse, the users who answer any suggestions for even mildly radical changes as if they had been elected Presiding Chair of the Consensus Committee of Article X. People should be encouraged to use the article talkpage instead. Peter ^Isotalo 14:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you've imagined examples of misuse. Can you provide any real examples? Have you not read the guidelines? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 15:17Z
    • Brian, do you enjoy harassing and trying to steamroll those who disagree with you? I've motivated my fears and I think they're justified. Same with other people. I can't show proof of a problem that I deem to be of a structural nature, but if you want to have a look at problems with unhealthy monopolizing of article by individual editors, then have a look at the initial FAC of Michael Jordan and the current FAR of B movie. Incidentally, the most rabid (and at times outright abusive) users have applied this template to their articles. Hardly a coincidence. Peter ^Isotalo 11:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It does have the potential to be misused as a way of sneaking around WP:OWN but as it has been exhaustively pointed out that has yet to happen. My primary concern is someone putting this template up and forgetting it, basically becoming inactive and thus leaving the template outdated. Inconvenient but not bad enough to warrant a delete. Arkyan 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep with rewording to "The following users are interested in this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources." I have placed this template on five articles I brought through the FA process: DNA, Enzyme kinetics, Enzyme, Enzyme inhibitor and Bacteria. This has resulted in a steady trickle of e-mail and talk page requests from people as diverse as schoolchildren and industrial chemists. These people might have had problems identifying any of the original contributors of these articles as the constant vandalism of FAs buries any constructive edits in the history under a mass of reverts. I don't see any harm being done either, as the history of Enzyme shows, having this tag certainly doesn't seem to deter people from editing the article! TimVickers 15:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It is clear and does not suggest ownership or anything like that. It has helped me to find assistance for articles I've worked on. If it does the job, I do not see any reason for it to be deleted.Kazu-kun 16:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Discussion page, project templates (Which list the users interested in and working on the article), and history tabs already reflect who is involved in maintaining the article. Zodiiak 18:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those pages are editor-oriented and filled with wiki-lingo; most of the people who access this site are not editors and have no clue what "history" means. That was one of the main reasons for creating this template. As has been pointed out above, heavy vandalism renders the history (and sometimes the talk page) useless for reference. Such is the case for main page featured articles, which are the ones most accessed by readers - all the more reason for the template. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-21 19:13Z
  • (To Zodiiak) Look at the history of an unprotected FA such as Cystic fibrosis. It appears that the major contributor is AntiVandalBot! Wikiprojects do not list people in any association with particular articles. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, who on this page would be an expert on glycolysis? TimVickers 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a person Maintains an Article doesn't mean they are an "Expert" on the matter. In addition, the same way you site people as not knowing what "History" means (ridiculous), it is then doubtful they understand the purpose of "Discussion," which renders the template useless. My opinion still stands, but obviously more people agree that it should be kept. In Zodiiak 07:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It poses no harm to any article and the suggestion that the editing history can be used to find interested parties is rarely true. I have used this template and periodically receive specific inquiries and suggestions from readers about article details. In those cases, people obviously preferred to pose a question to a named person, not broadcast it on the Talk page. Hal Jespersen 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it should be deleted. If you can't find an active maintainer/contributor in the recent history, then the template is a farce. Anyone who is actually active in maintaining an article will be in the history. All this template does is allow people to expand their user page into the talk page of an article that falls within the scope of their intertests. It's an excuse for showboating. John Reaves (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a mechanism for showing only the substantive, positive contributions to an article in the edit history, I'd agree with you. There are some articles that were fleshed out literally years ago and all of the hundreds of subsequent edits are tweaks, vandalism, and reversions. It is completely unreasonable to expect a user--particularly an inexperienced one--to wade back in time and find the subject matter experts. Hal Jespersen 20:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, anti-vandalism reverts form the majority of articles' history. Is it unreasonable to ask a non-expert editor to look at histories such as cystic fibrosis or menstrual cycle and pick out the substantive contributions from the mass of vandalism. TimVickers 21:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I intend to add this tag to the Devil May Cry 2 page, should it reach FA-class. It just makes sense for articles in which a user or group of users has invested a lot of time. While I can understand the concerns with WP:OWN, the fact of the matter is that someone who has spent a great deal of time working with the article has a good working knowledge of the subject and will be able to readily answer questions about sourcing. Likewise, the page history does not always reflect the contribution of content. If an article reaches FA-class (or even GA-class), there's very little work to be done. However wikignoming of renamed categories, double redirects, wikilinking and de-wikilinking, and plain old reversions of vandalism can rapidly make the history useless if another editor has a question for users who've done substantial work on the article. Cheers, Lankybugger 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per potential misuse of template under WP:OWN; in addition, it may suggest to those unfamiliar to Wikipedia that the article is co-ordinated by the editors listed in the template, hampering Wikipedia and potentially violating the second foundation issue, an unacceptable quality on any page in Wikipedia. anthonycfc ^[talk] 22:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's reasonable to say something should be deleted because of a potential for misuse. Most things here could be misused if people don't read the guidelines and don't use them correctly. Should we delete the vandalism warning templates as they have the potential for misuse in content disputes? Your concern as to this template on the talk page preventing people from editing the article is not borne out by the evidence of the edit histories of articles such as Enzyme. However, would you support the retention of the template with the revised wording suggested by Kevin? TimVickers 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As an example for people who are concerned that this template might deter editing, look at Enzyme, the template was added to the talk page on the 3rd September 2006, since then there have been approximately 1,000 edits made to the article. TimVickers 22:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is such a strange request; the primary argument in favor of deletion appears to be 'I feel like it might be misused', which is a non-statement, and bringing up anon editing as a foundation issue is completely tangential. It is nonsensical to expect new users to find and wade through the history of an oft-vandalized article or a high-traffic talk page to find the right person to contact about some minor issue. Unless we can start deleting vandalism/reversion pairs, this is very useful. Opabinia regalis 00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but reword as per Kevin. -SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 02:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:OWN, and also in favour of ((ExpertContribution)). --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 03:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lankybugger, but encourage better use. I think a problem for Wikipedia is the spasmodic edit patterns of articles, where an article is improved in a Featured Article drive and then left to rot. Getting all FAs maintained should greatly reduce the amount of defeaturings, and ensure that articles with that little gold star are really free from errors. However, the system won't be much use if maintainers let their duties slip. Listing oneself as actively maintaining an article should mean checking every change that is made to it, at least daily. A maintained article should have no vandalism for more than a day; and if you find an error that's been sitting unnoticed in a supposedly maintained article, take the tag off and complain to the maintainer. Λυδαcιτγ 05:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep I actually don't think it's used enough. Quick and simple way of seeing which users have invested the most into the article and thus are the best to contact with concerns. Also has a sort of "hey, I'm working on this, so please contact me before going and screwing everything up" message to it, which is helpful because sometimes it's hard to tell if there's anyone that actually cares about a certain article anymore. --SeizureDog 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, well-intended but gives people the wrong idea. WP:OWNership is a problem. >Radiant< 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these more imagined examples, or do you have evidence that people are getting the wrong idea? Or can you explain how it implies ownership, despite what the guidelines say and the wording of the template itself. Does it say anyone owns anything, or that edits must be cleared with someone first. What exactly do you believe it implies? Or is this another drive-by-vote (see above for copious other examples). — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-22 12:59Z
• Keep Good idea. Helpful to new users like me. Let's people know who to go to for help or questions they might have on an article. Tayquan 13:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This template promotes communication between editors. Worries about "promoting ownership of articles" do not seem to be supported by evidence. --JWSchmidt 14:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Reading the guidelines above, I am particularly struck by If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Nobody has shown that this template is being misused and the discussion has not touched on if it is possible to further clarify the documentation. TimVickers 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is unbelievable. The #1 problem Wikipedia has is that it is not considered to be a reliable source of information entirely due to facts being thrown around with no verification or lame verification. Wikipedia should have a much better system period to deal with this problem (including removing coding from citing sources by creating an input template for one Cite source button in the worthless online editor with a dropdown that asks for the type of citation/reference, then adjusts the input fields (and input validators) below the dropdown so that experts (but not in HTML or "wiki-coding" messes) can actually cite their sources for a change without having to learn what looks like "computer programming" to the average computer (Windows) user.
  
  And if/when that is ever done then many more people who are experts on topics and do have good sources will actually be able to cite them and the wiki-software could even add parameters such as retrieved_by=~~~[;...] and verified_by=~~~[;...] so that users have to make a PERSONAL STATEMENT that they have verified that whatever an article says actually matches what the alleged WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Attribution quality source actually states.
  
  But barring even that to try to solve the #1 problem Wikipedia has, at least leave this template intact so that those who do verify 'articles' (which isn't the way it should be done; it should be done BY EVERY REFERENCE, INDEPENDENTLY ... who is an expert on everything in a given article? [I am mostly interested in economics, socio-economics/demographics in municipal and regional articles; not all the rest of the crap, to me, on Wikipedia.] We have endless fights in articles and on talk pages over perfectly clear verification of populations, demographic, economic info-stats -- simply because others don't like the sounds of it. AT LEAST with this template around, the very LEAST Wikipedia can do about the rampant lack of verification problem, is allow those who do take the time to verify that one sentence, table, whatever of an article CLAIMS is actually stated by the alleged verification. Other than that, what the hell is there around this "encyclasylum' to even ATTEMPT to document verification of sources? Why not just remove the "edit this page" link? It's the only other lame "solution" to the lack of verification problems around here. Unbelievable -- but typical Wikipedia encyclasylum crap. Keep it up and you'll lose every editor who BOTHERS to take the very tedious time out to actually verify that articles (not, ever, a section at best so perhaps no user templates are good enough for the template: perhaps anyone who adds their login ID/handle to it should have to state which sentence(s), table(s), section(s) they are actually verifying and roughly how often, even though the software should be doing it automatically to at least attempt to solve the #1 problem Wikipedia has, making Wikipedia all but worthless. —S-Ranger 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I dare say most of the delete voters here would have no problem with a template that says "The content of this article has been verified against its references by the following users". Such a template doesn't exist. Why not create one? I for one would use it. But this template is completely different from that. Hesperian 23:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the template state on your video display? It states "The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article. If you have questions regarding verification and sources, they may be able to help:" on mine. What you propose above is far more bold, outright stating that the entire article has been verified as opposed to "may be" able to help with Wikipedia:Attribution. —S-Ranger 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am increasingly of the view that the problem with this template is the title and the first sentence. If we deleted the first sentence and renamed the template to "contacts" or "questions", I would be happy, it it appears that you would too. Hesperian 01:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any more important ongoing maintenance than verifying that allegations made in articles are actually proven in the alleged verification, so have no problem with the name of the template or the first sentence; given the context.

What is ("may be") helping with sources and verification other than directly dealing with the #1 problem Wikipedia (not just one article) has? Anyone who is taking the time to verify that what articles (and around the municipal/regional articles I frequent, there is geography, history, topography, climate, politics, economics, sports teams, "notable" or "famous" people from the city or region and on and on. No single person is an expert on all of it, so "may be able to help" is quite accurate) allege, particularly in tables of lots of demographic groups that takes lots of work to verify, is doing what other than helping to improve the article and Wikipedia in general? If a user who isn't doing that adds its handle then others notice it and delete the handle and that's that.

In the context of all of it, I have no problem with the first sentence at all and have no clue why anyone else thinks they do. It doesn't come close to claiming ownership of anything. Stick your handle in the template and all you say is that you may be able to help with Wikipedia:Attribution, which is helping all of Wikipedia with its #1 problem. I do think that more than just a user template (and not the ((user4|...)) template; I have a talk page here and don't publish any email address so the user4 template is worthless around my account and the user0 template is just fine.

But as no one person is capable of verifying everything in the types or articles I frequent perhaps what the user claims to have verified (one sentence, one table, one section at best) would be helpful to specify after ((user0|Example)) (Example (talk) ...the best and most simple way to add one's handle to the template; the documented method of screwing around with the user maintenance page and adding handles as documented didn't work for any of us when I just found this template and we had to figure it out and test it on the Toronto talk page) WHAT in the article does the user claim to be of potential help with Wikipedia:Attribution? Certainly not entire articles around the ones I frequent. But that can be dealt with per talk page as appropriate. The only way to add a handle is to edit data file source code as usual around Wikipedia, so just stick an HTML comment under the template to specify how to add one's handle and whatever other information makes sense for a given article/talk page. —S-Ranger 02:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. If it promoted ownership, I wouldn't have to revert all the well-meaning edits I have to articles I have this on. I only wish it were better at steering people to the person listed as maintainer. Daniel Case 03:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm strongly against ownership of articles, and in the past I nominated categories for deletion that suggested ownership. If this tag suggests ownership in any way, the wording can and should be improved. I put this tag on List of largest suspension bridges because I made a committment to maintaining the list. Certainly, someone could check the history and find that almost all the early edits were mine, but now that it is completed, my edtis are scattered among many others. I want this tag to exist for several reasons. First, I want people to know that there are people committed to keeping articles maintained. Second, I am inviting people to come to my talk page if they have questions which don't get answered on the articles talk page. Third, I want more pages adopted which I think will add to the credibility of Wikipedia. Shouldn't we be assuming good faith here? This isn't about ownership. I'd be more than happy to have someone else put their name on the page to replace me. It would ease my work-load. -- Samuel Wantman 07:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the absence of evidence of its usefulness. Brion keeps asking whether there is evidence that it's been misused, but that isn't the point. The burden of proof is on him and its other supporters to show that this template has palpable benefits to the articles where it's used, and isn't just more talk page clutter. —Angr 07:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's semantics Angr, most people feel the opposite. In my view, technically your group is the one trying to change things so you should have the evidence. Either way it's semantics. Quadzilla99 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote and we're not "groups" - we're all people who want to improve the encyclopedia but who have different opinions about this template. To help re-focus the discussion, how do people feel about Kevin's rewording? TimVickers 15:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following users are interested in this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources.

Did I say it was a vote? I'll assume good faith and assume that you didn't deliberately misinterpretate me. I'll explain it again. My point is that since there is no evidence being pointed to by either side—or any pointing to specific policies that this template directly violates (It has been stated that it could lead to WP:OWN but the template in no way makes any statements that violate WP:OWN)—this most likely will become a matter of consensus of opinion. Unless I'm missing something or soemthing unforeseen comes to light. Most importantly don't be so easily riled up. I in no way used group in any kind of negative connotation. Grouping people as supporters or detractors should in no way be seen as offensive; indeed I hope we're not getting to the point to where everyone is so P.C. that grouping people in any way is considered offensive. As for the proposed template I would prefer the current version to the proposed one, the proposed version doesn't makes it clear that the editor has a solid grasp of the contents in the article—which should always be the case when the template is used. This one makes it look like the editor might just be a fan of the subject. Quadzilla99 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My strong keep vote (above) also applies to this modification and/or renders the entire original comment after insane comment and all other votes obsolte because they'll all be based on nothing that exists anymore, so will have to try to figure out a new way to try to subvert Wikipedia:Attribution. It's a very simple solution that should be done right now to end this insanity, IMO. —S-Ranger 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Earlier, I gave an example in the GA hold of Strawberry Panic! of when this template proved useful. I alerted the editor named in it as to the hold, and since then, the article has been improved to fit GA standards. -Malkinann 06:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would qualify as evidence that it's useful. You'll notice I voted keep so I agree with you. Quadzilla99 06:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not popularize the reference desk and place headers at the top of article talk pages to indicate that interested readers can find answers to their questions there? --Iamunknown 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but reword. The site is useful for guiding newbs and drive-by-editors to someone who is more familiar with the article's history and past-debates. Reword so that a mention about how they may be maintaining the article, but they don't WP:OWN it appears in the template. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I must say that I have used this template, and I really regard it as very useful, especially if someone wants to contact with a person working on an article for the x or the z reason.--Yannismarou 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Look at it this way. If some wiki-article actually has a reason and consensus to protect or semi-protect a page, should it affect all wiki-articles or just the article in question? The same goes for this template. IF it (or anything else) becomes a problem on a specific talk page of a specific article then get your consensus there and remove it -- as opposed to trying to impose your theories on all of Wikipedia by deleting the template outright. Deal with it on a case by case basis as with everything else. If it turns out that on around one article and/or talk page that there is some real proof that the template somehow (via paranoia I'd say but I frequent huge articles that hundreds or thousands of people have created/are involved in and don't care about any little "pet project" pages -- or who happens to be the main editor(s) who are causing me all of the work verifying sources or adding them and if everything checks out, I could have spent hours making sure it all checks out but make no edits at all if eveything is in shape; not that I can or am (or any other one person is) capable of verifying "everything" around any of the articles I frequent as mentioned above). For puny articles or whatever, don't use the template if you get some consensus on one page, with real facts documeting the reason(s) the template isn't to be used on that talk page -- not all talk pages.
  And go ahead and create your own templates that suit your talk pages and use them instead. Why this huge attempt to deny something I know to be useful -- for every freaking article on Wikipedia over theories that are irrelevant?
  Why are they irrelevant? IF some "ownership" issues actually turn up on some article/talk page with real proof then don't use that template and/or create your own: and don't assume that just because/if it's ever "proven" that WP:OWN somehow ends up involved that it's the case around all articles/talk pages either because you will never be able to prove that). Basically, mind your own freaking business. There is no obligation to put the template on any talk page, nor is there any obligation to use that particular template, with consensus arond one article/talk page. —S-Ranger 23:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Raul654 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. There is no implication of ownership. It simply points editors to others who are experts on that subject. I'm sure there is some incident of drama that happened in some area that caused this debate. Where I contibute, I haven't seen any issues of editors trying to "own" an article. If there is, it would NOT stem from this template. --Sable232 01:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but reword using Kevin's suggestion. ("The following users are interested in this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources.") This compromises between WP:OWN and advertising editor assistance. -- Reaper X 15:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the above can be turned into a quick consensus to end this insanity now, it has my support and I'd assume of all of the other keep and strong keeps above. It is the very most that should be done (around wording anyway: regarding not having to do "computer programming" to add proper verification in the first place and some actual help from the lame wiki-software for those who do take time to verify that (parts of, but that's easily addressed in the template contents by using something called a brain) actually states what the alleged verification claims backs up statements, tables and everything else around wiki-articles, the very least we need is a way to keep track of which verification/citations we, as in me personally and others, if anyone else does it, have completed and when, to try to at least help with the #1 problem Wikipedia has and that this template attempts to help out with ... and looking at history pages is nothing but stupidity due to vanity).
  
  Who says that who/whatever (a bot) happens to edit the most is the prominent expert on the topic as opposed to the prominent dimwit or prominent vandals that have caused and continue to cause the #1 problem Wikipedia has?
  All I have to do with this template, aside from doing probably the most boring but important job there is around Wikipedia is verifying that parts of articles, as already stated, no one person is an expert around all topics in the articles I tend to frequent, actually state what the alleged verifiction does and WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Attribution (etc., etc.) is log in and see if I have any new posts (questions, trolling/bullying, best of luck around me, around sources, usually because they know nothing, on my talk page (not yet, in the whole two weeks since we reached a consensus to use the maintainted template on Talk:Toronto a couple of weeks ago; but it's the general idea). I don't have to edit any article unless something is actually wrong with verification -- and I'm interested in and qualified to fix it; and if not the template doesn't state that anyone is an expert, simply that they may be able to help by simply pointing others to Wikipedia:Attribution and Google or the like if it's the best they can do around a given topic then it is and is better than nothing at all ... and what is more important around here than trying to help with the #1 problem Wikipedia has, I can't imagine).
  
  It's quite obvious that editors are the #1 problem around Wikipedia (well, the insanity of the wiki-editor software itself, sticking "computer programming" in the faces of everyone who tries to do anything, is and causes the #1 problem, along with unqualified editors, even if they think otherwise Wikipedia proves them wrong or they wouldn't be the #1 problem Wikipedia has so the #1 problem I have): lack of credible sources for alleged facts being thrown around by "editors" who can kiss my ass with their worthless history lists that states nothing at all about WP:NPOV or Wikipedia:Attribution and the asses of anyone else trying to help with WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Attribution given that both go hand in hand as the #1 problem (lack of both) around almost every wiki-article and both should be one citation/link in the maintained template, like Wikipedia:Citing sources should just link to WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Attribution (if it doesn't already) and then the template could simply point to [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] instead to make sure that WP:NPOV is in there (but it is, it links right from the semi-new Wikipedia:Attribution article the maintained template cites -- given that any alleged verification with an obvious bias is garbage, the two go hand in hand; and this template also helps out when combined with ((fact)) Wikipedia:Citing sources ... no end of insanity around here, why it doesn't expand to Wikipedia:Attribution I have no idea; perhaps the maintained template should link to Wikipedia:Citing sources instead of to Wikipedia:Attribution ... or perhaps the ((fact)) template should cite Wikipedia:Attribution given that it's all the same topic, the same thing, the same #1 problem Wikipedia has.
  
  The re-wording removes all alleged POV and not even original research above, just lame assumptions based on nothing, and I'm fine with the change of wording, it's a fine solution, so where is BRIAN0918 to do it him/herself to get this stupidity out of the way?
  
  Or should I just go edit the template? The second it changes this ridiculous thread is irrelvant garbage not that it always wasn't: but compromising with insanity seems to be the "wiki-way." Reaper X, do you mind if I quote your post on [[User_talk:Brian0918] so s/he can see the proposed change and do it him/herself to make this entire vote irrelevant (given that it'll be a vote based on on a template that doesn't exist as soon as it's changed)? Thanks. It's an open post anyway and I'll go back up and get the original "re-worder" and add that as well given that poor BRIAN0918 has probably left this encylasylum of wiki-heads who can't read or even comprehend simple common sense and simple facts.
  
  It looks to me as nothing but votes against Wikipedia:Attribution or just simple insanity. Either way, the handles that voted to delete need to be watched to find out what their problem with Wikipedia:Attribution is, now they've announced themselves I'll certainly be adding them all to my list to keep an eye on what they're doing to be so against Wikipedia:Attribution and/or so clued out as to what it even is. —S-Ranger 20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S-Ranger, you seem to be constantly complaining about the MediaWiki software without coming up with any suggestions to make it better. Do you realize the guys who create this software are just volunteers working to make the software the best they can? We have something called MediaWiki BugZilla where you can make suggestions to improve the software, if feel there is some way to make referencing easier. It takes a little while to learn, but even a layperson like myself can grasp it fairly easily. To have drop down boxes for referencing is going to require heavy modification to the editor, and probably still won't be much faster than using something like Template:Cite book etc. Unless you plan to write the source code for such a feature I'd suggest making your criticisms more constructive and directed. Richard001 00:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, agreed and it's off-topic but I have every intention of getting involved with the wiki software with informed feedback if nothing else is allowed (I hope not) to start. I just got in crap for 'blaming wiki editors' for the #1 problem Wikipedia has and now for trying not to do that by qualifying with the difficulties I know 'editors' experience due to the software, to deflect personal anything but lose either way. Apologies and such is life sometimes. —S-Ranger 02:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not sure OWN applies here. Re-wording is not a bad idea either. —Pilotguy (go around) 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sure, it probaby should be reworded/tweaked a bit, bu if someone's reading the article and has a question about it that a wikipedian not familiar with the article wouldn't know, they know who to ask. The criticism of WP:OWN is unfounded to me, as there's no evidence of abuse. In fact I've found this helpful rather than hurtful. The benefits of this far outweigh tthe risks.--Wizardman 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep

The template should be restructured to give the user more options over what it says about themselves. There should be a default message (the one that appears now), then some fields that the user can modify to suit their specific intentions. For example, the fields EXPERT (Yes/No), Help with references (Yes/No) (e.g. a non-expert librian), Maintaining (Yes/No) (To say whether you are watching all edits and reverting all vandalism), and Expansion (Yes/No) - to say whether or not you expanding are or intend to expand the article in near future. As an example the 'this user is interested in this topic' proposal (see template above) would be used for those not involved heavily in maintaining or expanding, but able to help with references even though they may not have a PhD in the subject. I feel this should all be kept in the one template so that a) 16 separate templates to fill all possibilities aren't needed and b) to keep it all in one message (who wants to see three separate templates each saying similar things about different contributors?) In this way if we have an expert who can help with references, someone who can expand the article and someone who is prepared to weed out all the vandalism, the three can work together and users and editors alike can see what is happening with the article in terms of maintenance and expansion, and they have someone to go to for questions or further references/verification.

Seeing the article both lets me know there is someone I can go to for advice with editing or references and lets me know that someone will be maintaining the quality of the article such that there is no need to add it to my watchlist. The problem of vandalism and other edits that lower the quality of articles is huge, and there is a great need to have people taking some responsibility for articles.

I use it myself on death basically to say that I'm active in maintaining quality (it receives much vandalism) and I have recently, and intend to continue expanding it. I don't want to imply that I'm an expert in any way, but I may still be able to help people with references, as I have access to a university library and e-Journals.

If there is a genuine concern, why not specifically say in small text below, something like 'Note: This does not imply ownership or authority over this article in any way. Refer to the template guidelines.

The other main problem is when the user is inactive. If they are they should be removed after around a month of inactivity provided they have stated that they are active in maintaining or expanding the article. If they have made no edits to Wikipedia at all for a period of time (1 month, 3 months?) they should be removed entirely unless they wish to remain there simply for help with references or editing concerns. This can either be done manually or automatically (if possible), though a note should be left on their talk page either way.

The number of keeps above far outweighs the number of delete votes, and the discussion appears to show better reasons for keeping that deleting. Most importantly, those wanting to delete have failed to provide sufficient evidence that there has been misuse, and the burden of proof is on them to do so. Richard001 00:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it...the soundbyte "word police" around here don't like details. You can do all of that and more with the Maintained template or anything else. There is no way for anyone to add their handle without hitting the "edit this page" tab. So any/all instructions about adding usernames and whatever else go (are documented) in an HTML comment below the Maintained tag after changing the contents of anything and everything below what the template states to a table or whatever else. For example:

<!-- Enter your information as follows:
     |{user0|Your_handle)) where Your_handle is your Wikipedia login ID.
     |Topic(s): list the topic(s) you verify here and (E) for Expert and
                [[YYYY-MM-DD]] of last verification
     |-
-->

Education, etc., see the user page because if it isn't there it isn't going to be anywhere else. I haven't tested a wiki-table in the Maintained template but providing a template of whatever information needed for whatever circumstances can be and makes sense to be provided in an HTML comment below the table. Maybe:

((user 0|<Your_handle>)) • <what you verified last> • [[YYYY-MM-DD]]<br /> with further instructions under that. No one can add their handle without (if it's at the top of a talk page where it's supposed to be) clicking on the "edit this article" tab and from there, there is no choice but to see all of the data file formatting/"source code" and HTML comments too. Around this, the more complications to add a username the better. You can semi-qualify people just by complicating the heck out of getting their usernames added to the template, with a wiki-table in it and anything else; though I haven't tested it, I now want to, to see how complicated I could make this with tons of information required. It's along the lines of, if it's necessary, "if you can't manage to get your information into this template correctly then you probably are not qualified to claim that you understand all other code and references in articles, so even if you are a good verifier you won't be able to do anything about it" kinda thing.

The template(s) could even be left right in the table with ((user0|Example)) ... with instructions to copy/paste it then replace Example and whatever else, because it has to be documented somewhere and there is no one size fits all solution to this for every talk page/subject of Wikipedia. —S-Ranger 03:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, doesn't really discourage newbies from editing. After all, it's on the talk page, which most people don't read before editing the article. Kusma (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I maintain a few Civil War articles such as Cincinnati in the Civil War and Morgan's Raid, and have indeed been contacted by folks wanting more information, or offering useful suggestions. Scott Mingus 15:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have only put this template on the two featured articles and one featured list to which I have made major contributions. Once they became featured, I have not made huge numbers of subsequent edits, but minor edits do accumulate and it might not be clear from a cursory glance at the edit history that I might be a good person to contact about this. Ruhrfisch 21:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as redundant, the same can be accomplished through the article talk page and everyone can see it immediately. The only thing this template does is remove discussion from the article talk page that should probably be there. Besides, if a user who is "maintaining" an article is suddenly no longer maintaining it, the template is rendered useless, what if you go on vacation for a month? If a reader has a question about an article they can just use the talk page. IvoShandor 06:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A helpful template - I can't really see the issue. Qjuad 09:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe instead of Template:Maintained, it could be called Template:Users that know about this topic (I know, kind of long). The template could be reworded to something more like "these users are familiar with this topic and are available if you would like information" or something to that effect. It seems the "Keeps" want it kept on the page as an additional information source. I think this would help increase the level of community within Wikiepdia by letting users offer expertise on certain topics this way. I also agree that if kept, this Template whould stay as far away from article ownership wording as possible. Thanks! Muchris 15:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with no prejudice for re-wording. -- Avi 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep would not oppose rewording. --evrik ^(talk) 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made a comment on the new useless wording on the template. It's on the templage's talk page. Tayquan 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Template:Maintained (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been changed to state only "The following users are interested in this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:" So the original comment, all votes and everything else are irrelevant. It's a different template so none of the unfounded, unproven, POV, unverified theories for deletion apply anymore (so sorry to take your ridiculous wastes of time away). [Click the refresh button or equivalent (press the [F5] key around every web broswer worth mentioning) in your web browser if you can't see the change for yourself]. —S-Ranger 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I am ok with re-wording. -Ravedave 03:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I use this template to make it known that I can be contacted regarding verification and sources, that is ALL this template means to me and certainly do not use it to imply ownership. Cricket02 04:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rephrase, and probably rename. Despite the raft of !votes asserting that the template is only harmless, I am persuaded by the arguments that it is useful for encouraging discussion between new editors to a topic and those who have extensive experience. I do think that the template's current wording does strongly imply proprietary rights for the editors it lists, which is something we should not encourage, even in the absence of evidence that it has contributed substantially to WP:OWN problems. This may not only be helpful for sourcing issues, but for domain-specific style issues as well. —ptk✰fgs 11:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reword per above. Noclip 13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have achieved consensus on Keep but reword. TimVickers 15:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some people will have lots of knowledge on the topic in question, and the person who edits it, who does not have as much knowledge about the particular subject, can ask the person who knows lots about the topic if they can verify it. I fail to see how this promotes ownership of articles.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 00:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To those who read carefully, the template does not state ownership; but if it's thought best to reword it so as to make the lack-of-ownership explicit, fine. I added this template to one page (Agnes of France (Byzantine empress)) and at the same time contacted other recent editors to make clear to them personally that I wasn't claiming ownership. No one had any objection. The presence of the template has brought two queries to my userpage directly, and I've answered them. I think that's really the point of it, isn't it? So, in that small way, it has worked. \Andrew Dalby 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this templates helps to maintain a more cohesive wikipedia community. It stimulations discussion between interested parties regarding the pages that it is used on.--Dr who1975 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This template is in major use on thousands of articles, and it is very useful for identifying those who help out most on a specific article. Wikipedians will have an easier time finding people they could ask for more info on a specified article quickly and efficiently. INFORMATION CENTER© (T • C) 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: This template promotes ownership and creates a false aura of authority for the persons listed. Maintainers of an article can be easily spotted (a) from the page history and (b) from the fact that they respond to changes. The template discourages other editors from contributing. On pages where there is disagreement or controversy, it communicates to other editors that they will have to face a groupthink; many people won't bother to correct things that are wrong. Avt tor 05:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I don't really think this falls under WP:OWN, the template it self is rather useful althought it can be changed to clarify the OWN concerns, it really should not be deleted. -凶 05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not only does the template promotes ownership, there is currently no good way of maintaining these stewards. Having out of date stewards indicated just promotes questions being referred to locations where they won't receive aid.

• Keep: Per Information Center. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 13:25, 30 March 2007 (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.