This template is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism 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.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
The logic is that the Intelligent design movement is driven by the Discovery Institute, who's "science" branch is the Center for Science and Culture, which authored and is guided by the Wedge strategy, which advocates the Teach the controversy campaign. FeloniousMonk23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The parameter id="toc" causes this template to be suppressed whenever the user has tables of content suppressed. As far as I can tell, none of the similar infoboxes choose to be suppressed that way. If my own user experience is typical, I want to suppress the system-generated tables of contents at the top of the article because they get in my way and don't add materially to my reading experience. But the infobox of related links is useful and should show.
User:FeloniousMonk has objected to giving this template a prominent position on the Intelligent design article (which, one would thought, is the only article on all of Wikipedia where it is, by definition, blatantly obvious that the template belongs and should be most emphasized), on the grounds that it is "more specific" than the {{creationism2}} template (which, I would have thought, is one of the many reasons why the ID template is much more relevant and important than the creationism one! o_O;). My attempts to work out a compromise have all been ignored and dismissed out-of-hand—I've attempted to move the creationism mere inches lower so as to give room to the even more clearly relevant ID template on the ID article, but FeloniousMonk has dismissed even the possibility of change with "don't rock the boat" status-quo-worshiping silliness, ignoring the contents of all of my arguments at Talk:Intelligent_design#Template_placement for moving the two templates slightly for the sake of the readers' benefit. I've attempted to add a link to Creationism, which, based on FeloniousMonk's arguments (where he's said that we should go out of our way to emphasize that ID is a thinly-veiled creationist movement), he should be strongly in favor of even if he opposes moving the ID template to the top of the ID page, yet apparently, bizarrely enough, he reverted the change just to spite me despite it being a blatantly obviously, clear change to make (based entirely on his own comments!), on the assumption that anything done by anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some sneaky, nefarious tactic to get what he wants in the end. Positively the worst example of failing to assume good faith I've ever seen in my two years on Wikipedia. -Silence04:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be that while ID is a subset of Creationism, Creationism is not a subset of ID?
BTW, AGF works both way -- I see no such assumption on your part. Oh wait! could that be because you're the victim and FM is the oppressor? Oppressed editors of the world unite? Please, the assumption of good faith, like respect, is earned. •Jim62sch•09:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from the blatant incivility. If you're going to be uncivil, at least be sneakier about it so people have a harder time pinning you down. :P
In any case, you reply is a non sequitur, and implies that you did not read anything that I actually wrote above, or just have not been paying attention. That ID is a subset of creationism is exactly the reason why we have only the Creationism template on Creationism, and both the ID and Creationism templates on ID; but that's hardly a remotely compelling or reasonable argument for putting the Creationism template at a higher priority on the ID article—what's most important in an article about ID is ID itself, not creationism! I have never argued for removing the creationism template from the ID article; all I've pointed out is that ID is more important to ID than creationism is to ID. That's simply a truism, so I'm baffled at why so many people have (feebly) attempted to argue against that simple statement. If we were having a discussion about ID and Creationism-related images, rather than ID and Creationism-related templates, the exact same principles would come into play: the creationism image might be broader, but the ID image is much more relevant in the ID article itself, so while we can include both images in the article, the ID image is the one that should probably go at the top. For the same reason, although the ID template and Creationism template are both relevant to ID, the ID template is much more relevant to ID, so including it at the very top of the article (and the creationism template only slightly below it) makes much more sense.
Moreover, none of that is relevant to the question of whether creationism should be linked to from the ID template, though FeloniousMonk mistakenly conflated the two issues, and now you have followed in the footsteps of his error in your zeal to attack me. All that matters with respect to the actual issue of the minor edit I made to the template is whether or not a link to the creationism is appropriate on the ID template, and considering that ID is already linked to on the creationism template, I see absolutely no reason not to have a link to the parent article on this one! Several of the ID articles, like Discovery Institute and Center for Science and Culture, don't use the creationism template, just the ID one, so at the very least for the sake of those articles, it simply makes sense to provide a link to the parent article, creationism, in the template. I created the link to Creationisminexactly the same style that other, similar templates do, such as Template:Humanism providing a link to Politics at its top.
The fact that I took the time to make an edit specifically in line with exactly FeloniousMonk was arguing on Talk:Intelligent design (that we need to be completely explicit about the fact that ID is a form of creationism) and it was blindly reverted without any justification is just amusingly telling in that it provides a great example of the fact that FeloniousMonk and several of the other editors at ID are reverting my changes on autopilot: they are refraining from thinking about, considering, or discussing any of the edits I've recommended or made, they simply revert them based on their false assumptions about the editor, completely ignoring the various merits of faults of the edits. That is unWikipedianlike: you should be ashamed, sirs. >:O Or don't be, I don't care, but let's at least quit the silly, counterproductive revert warring so we can actually get down to improving these pages with some discussion and edits. If you object to a change I made, why not simply say what you object about it? Thus far, nobody has.
Secondly, I find your mischaracterization of my arguments and status amusing, but rather shallow. I have never claimed to be "oppressed", nor do I vilify User:FeloniousMonk (in fact, he's been one of my favorite editors in the past, despite this unfortunate misstep of his), nor even you, despite your consistently rude and antagonistic behavior. I have no doubt that both of you are acting in good faith—you can act in good faith while still failing to assume good faith in others. Everyone makes mistakes: I'm interested, not in casting blame, but in correcting your mistaken assumptions about my character, my edits, and my behavior, so we can move on free of such misconceptions and resume the productive edits to ID I was in the middle of. Incidentally, you are also utterly mistaken about the nature of Wikipedia in claiming that "assumption of good faith, like respect, is earned"—good faith is not earned from the very beginning. That's the meaning of "assume good faith": you assume good faith before you are sure of what the user's intentions are! If you refuse to assume good faith until it's absolutely, 100% proven to you in a court of law, then you are explicitly violating WP:AGFbynot "assuming" the best in people, but rather the worst, and only changing your mind after they've jumped through hoops to demonstrate their loyalty to you. The problem with such an assumption of bad faith is that it's often a self-fulfilling prophecy: when you treat everyone new you interact with with paranoid hostility and aggression until they've proven themselves to you, you'll inevitably bring out the worst, not the best, in people. On the other hand, it is true that assuming good faith does have limits (such as blatant vandalism)—but when it's dropped, it's dropped after a user has proven to be acting in bad faith, not before! I have not acted in bad faith in any action I have taken with respect to the intelligent design page; please retract your blind accusation and apologize (or at least drop the goading, acidic attitude for one minute) so we can resume civil discussion. -Silence10:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was sarcasm, not incivility. And in all honesty, if you continue to go against long-established consensus on the article and continue to write book-length missives, not much is going to change. You may very well have some good ideas, but it's hard to find them through all the verbiage. I know I'm not the first person on Wiki to point this out to you.
As for the rest...no one is reverting you on autopilot, believe it or not, people actually do take the time to read the edits.
As for AGF, I prefer a bit of neutrality in the beginning, assuming nothing -- but that's just my personality: as FM pointed out (and I tend to agree), AGF is not a suicide pact.
I made no blind accusation either; instead let us think about this for a moment. Both FM and I revert your edit (although for slightly different reasons -- mine is explained twice on this page), and you immediate say "I was acting in good faith" (or words to that effect). This protestation has tended in the past to connote, "I'm acting in good faith, but you are not".
Now, in your case, that very well may not have been what you meant. I've run across you on other articles, and when I saw you had edited ID, I though, oh, OK, cool -- you see, I actually think you're a good editor, although, as I said, your explanations on talk are just too long. However, when I read the edits I was astounded by how you'd gone about making the changes and by the edits themselves. There was no discussion, no trying to gain consensus, acting as if there was consensus when there clearly was not, etc. The edits themselves did not improve the article (not that they destroyed it either), and many of them were very reminiscent of items we've hashed over repeatedly in the past.
I apologize if I wasn't clear enough in saying "I'm acting in good faith". The point of saying "I'm acting in good faith" was not to contrast it with "You're acting in bad faith", but to contrast it with "You think that I'm acting in bad faith". As I've pointed out, I believe that all participants in this dispute are acting in good faith, and a lot of the problem is resultant from misunderstandings. However, while I assume good faith on the part of all the participants, from his actions, it seems that FeloniousMonk does not. That does not make his actions ones taken in bad faith—he is mistaken, not malicious—but it does give reason for him to be less hasty in his assumption that every new user who tries to help out on ID is an evil POV-pushing content-sneaking-in bastard. I strongly recommend that he reread Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which is an official Wikipedia policy, not a soft guideline or suggestion.
You are mistaken in your claim that "the edits themselves did not improve the article". Although some of them may have been "hashed over" in the past, they are nonetheless necessary, and worthy of discussion again if they are a matter of dispute. What I'm disappointed by isn't that some of my edits have been disputed, it's that they haven't been criticized or picked apart, they've just been ignored and tossed in the trash! How can I discuss or rework or compromise about any of the changes I've made when everybody completely refuses to explain what's wrong with any of them? How can I attempt to build consensus on issues which noone has even raised? Even the Talk page archives are not helpful on this point; it seems that only a psychic ability would give me the power to satisfy your demands.
By the way, to go back to the actual edit that originated this discussion: How about, instead of a link to creationism, if we provide on to Neo-Creationism? Neocreationism is a term specifically created to label the ID movement (and, more recently, its less-noteworthy siblings), so it seems silly not to include it in the ID template. The intelligent design page itself links to Neo-Creationism itself, but not in amy prominent positions, so a link from here would probably help. -Silence17:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we decide to use the template, that'd be fine...I'm still undecided as to whether the template itself is necessary. I can see argument for and against its inclusion. •Jim62sch•14:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I'd like to point something out. I don't think Creationism belong on this box. I know you guys are talking this all to death, but after reading half of what you two are talking about, most of it got on the topic of AGF. So let me just put my opinion clearly and simply: Intelligent design is a theory that stands independently of religion. Anyone of any Religion may be an ID theorist. It's explanations and rationalizations are indipendant of all religious beliefs, not let alone just Christianity. Felle free to comment, agree, disagree, etc. Rustyfence (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mine is more of an argument from logic, not from sources. I have done research on the topic, and I am intrested in Intelligent design. I have heard speakers, and read Darwin's Black Box (and plan to read more) on it. What I find is that all of the sources make their argument originally because they notice issues with evolutionary theory that they think can't explain some phenomena. They are intentionally vauge with the identity of the intelligent designer (Behe mentions in Black Box that it may be a time-traveling cell biologist). I am about to go to an ID forum on May 18 about ID, where I can get you more more reliable sources, as it is probablly the only way that link will come off. I'll comment back here after then, where I'll try to buy some of the books & quote some speakers. Rustyfence (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An "argument from logic" would be WP:OR. The "intentional vagueness" & specious suggestion of "a time-travelling cell biologist" are merely camouflage on what is, by prominent IDers own admission, a designer who is in fact God. See the Kitzmiller decision (p25-26) for a well-written explication (and references to evidence and expert testimony) on this point. Given the level of equivocation, evasion and contradiction they display on the subject, I would not expect IDers bald claims to be accepted as reliable on this -- it would require a reliable secondary source interpreting this to distil this equivocation and self-contradiction down to an expert position as to their real opinion. HrafnTalkStalk05:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This issue was discussed at length and settled a long time ago by long term contributors at Talk:Intelligent design; the final outcome was that intelligent design would be lower case throughout ID-related articles. This is due to the theories ID seeks to supplant, the theory of evolution, evolutionary theory, not being commonly capitalized. FeloniousMonk03:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue does not seem to be settled with relation to this template though. And besides, nothing is ever set in concrete on a wiki. The decapitalisation of the i on this template was also not specifically under that particular consensus model. This is actually a style issue as it looks plain ugly to have the word as a header and have no capitalisation. Stating that it is "completely arbitrary" that intelligent design is a generic term because evolution is a generic term isn't that impressive as an argument. Ansell 23:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
While the watch is more interesting photographically, I think the nautilus is more in line with intelligent design as it is presented. CM (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Watch makes sense, it's been used a lot. The connection is obvious. The Nautilus - not so much. I could see Mount Rushmore, although I prefer the watch. But the Nautilus...nah. Guettarda (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the nautilus doesn't make sense. Other than the fact that it was one of the few marine animals to survive the Permian-Triassic extinction event 230 million years ago. But I'm not sure Creationists would appreciate the irony. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions00:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion: Put the shell because the watch is on every other page, and it gives a naturally occuring example for inteligent design. The watch is on the top of the page aswell. People can look at that there.
some randomer 20.52 thursday 24/04/08
A number of articles have both this template and the creationism2 template. This makes the formatting somewhat atrocious, especially on Firefox. I propose to add a link to the more general creationism portal from this template and remove the second template. Any objections? -SelketTalk20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been considerably more polite if you'd actually allowed us time to venture an opinion before you made all these changes. I had no problem with the stacked vertical templates, however if the horizontal template is to be used it belongs at the very bottom of the article, not below the see-also section as you have placed it. HrafnTalkStalk03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Free Speech on Evolution' was a campaign that was essentially stillborn. 'Stand Up For Science' likewise was a fairly short-lived campaign that achieved little momentum. I would suggest against either being added to the template (and would be in favour of merging both into the wider Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns article). As the creator of the 'Strengths and weaknesses of evolution' article I'm not in a position to give an objective opinion on its significance -- the full extent of which of which may only be known in the fullness of time. HrafnTalkStalk17:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want the image removed from Template:Intelligent Design as per WP:MOSICON and WP:ICONDECORATION. The image does not represent intelligent design as a whole so there is really no need for it. It is a picture of a watch under the word intelligent design. That really would not make sense at all to someone who had no idea what intelligent design was when visiting this article. It is inappropriate for the template and that same image could be used in the article itself with an appropriate caption describing the meaning behind it. Additionally, I had this argument over template:evolution3 and Template:Creationism2, and both images were removed due to decoration and the image not relating to the topic. Complex ideas usually have trouble being illustrated by one image, so it is best that no image is used at all. A. Z. Colvin • Talk21:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By way of illustrating, literally, my point: A picture of a flower that, in my opinion, is very pretty. I suppose that someone could argue that it sort of illustrates intelligent design, because it comes from nature and ID is a belief about nature, but it's a real stretch to say that it truly illustrates any particular aspect of ID thought. But, in my opinion, it sure is pretty. Therefore, I would consider it to be "purely decorative", were anyone to put it in this template. The watchmaker analogy, in contrast, is a prominent aspect of ID. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the image. Frankly, I don't see that there's really a problem here. It illustrates, of course, the watchmaker analogy. So what if there are other aspects of the subject that it does not illustrate? Is there some kind of harm to our readers in that? WP:ICONDECORATION is talking about something purely decorative, and furthermore is a guideline to which there can be exceptions. It's a matter of opinion as to whether this image is purely decorative, or whether it illustrates part of the thinking behind ID. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove.Tryptofish, the problem is that opinion does not create consensus. Just a few posts above this is a discussion about which image to use. A Nautilus or a pocket watch. (If you look though the history of this template and the creationism template, the images have changed over and over, which shows me that it is a decoration, not an image of any use). Clearly, the pocket watch is not a full representation of the topic and it could be substituted by a number of other pictures like a bacteria flagellum or the book Of Pandas and People. What is even worse is that you want a watch as the image, but the article mentions NOTHING of a watch or the watchmaker analogy. You have to get to the bottom of the page and click the only link. A curious reader that did not know about the topic in detail may not know about the watchmaker analogy and may not connect the pocket watch with that phrase. It is basically a random image it a caption also just saying what the picture is, not anything about the analogy. It is purely decorative and I know that because it was not an accident that the colors of the image match the template colors. The same thing happened to the creationism template. The image was The Creation of Adam. That is about creation, but there are many other religions that believe in their own version creationism. It did not represent the topic a whole and neither does this one. Additionally, “the watchmaker analogy, or watchmaker argument, is a teleological argument for the existence of God” by definition. William Paley came up with it long before Intelligent Design came along, so it is even more distantly related to the topic. Charles, it is not necessarily “common knowledge”. The other reason I want the image gone (and the template reformatted like I did) is to match the other templates. This has been on people’s minds sense 2006. When I looked through the history, of both the creationism and intelligent design templates, the creationism one ([1] showed that they, “[formatted the] template to match other templates it's on the same page as”, and “[Make it look] comparable to the other templates…” The evidence is there. The templates have been designed to match and the creationism. The other two matching templates (evolution and genetics) have also come to the consensus that the images are unneeded. A. Z. Colvin • Talk01:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A.Z., I didn't say that opinion, mine or yours, creates consensus. I said that it's a matter of opinion whether the part of the guideline that you invoked applies here, far from clear that it applies. You say that the watch doesn't illustrate everything about the subject: so what? The color matches: so what? The concept also existed before ID: so what? You are trying to argue that the image has to be all-encompassing and perfect in every way, but there is no need that it be so. But you also make a good point: that just showing the image without explanation can be cryptic to readers unfamiliar with the subject. I'd support adding a brief explanatory caption below the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image should absolutely represent it as a whole. If it does not, then why should be at the head of the article (or head of the template)? There is not an image that represents all of physics, which is why there is not a main image for physics. The one that is there (the equation) is not exactly a perfect representation, but E=mc^2 basically applies in all of physics. A watch on the other hand does not represent intelligent design. You could use your same argument with any picture, thus justifying its use. I cannot really say it anymore. It just does not represent ID as a whole. No matter what justifications you give it, it does not represent ID. For an image being used in a template, it needs to represent the topic a whole. If it cannot, then it really should not be there. Anyways, why could we not just remove the image from the template and actually place it separately in the article with a better description of it? That would solve the problem entirely. A. Z. Colvin • Talk07:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out in my comment above, your argument depends upon you postulating that the image must be, in effect, perfect. By adopting this debating topic, you appear to give yourself leave to dig up any possible criticism—anything will do—and use it to allege that the image is not good enough. Carrying your argument ad absurdum, we should not allow any pages, anywhere on the project, to have images in their lead sections, only in text sections below the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No words in bold from me as this is not a vote, however this image is entirely decorative if I was looking at this I would expect this to be watches no ID. The definition of a decorative image is one that if removed doesn't imped the users understanding which this is clear the case here Gnevin (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I suggested a caption. Or are you arguing that all thumbnail images on Wikipedia are also decorative, because they come with captions, but according to you they should be self-explanatory? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But an image can enhance understanding, enhance appreciation of the subject, even if the subject can still be understood if the image were removed. We could remove some of the page links from the template without actually impeding understanding of ID, but that does not mean that it would be an improvement to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gnevin. Another thing is that us that oppose the image in use have policy that forbids against its use, while there is not a policy that permits its use. It needs to be removed, and I don’t see why you cannot just be satisfied with putting the image in the article itself instead of in the template? A. Z. Colvin • Talk00:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons) is a guideline, not a policy. Policies should not be overruled by local consensus. Guidelines, on the other hand, can be. And saying "policy forbids against [sic] its use" really muddies the water, since policies (in general) and the MOS in particular, are about describing best practices, not about forbidding things. Guettarda (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, on reading the guideline more carefully, I realized that it specifies: "For the purposes of this guideline, icons are any small images, including logos, crests, coats of arms, seals and flags." There's some ambiguity in the part about "any small images, including...", but I think a common sense reading is that it refers only to images, such as those examples, that are being used as icons, which this image, like many template images, is not. There is a difference between an icon and an illustration. We are apparently having this argument based upon a guideline that does not even apply here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another point to make is that there are templates that do contain images that represent the topic as a whole. A watch cannot represent an abstract concept like ID. A picture of seashells however CAN represent the whole topic about seashells. The template I have placed aside represents this. It is essentially decorative, but it does represent the topic as a whole. Abstract concepts cannot be represented easily with an image. Take this template for example. It has a heart that, yes a heart represents "love" and most of society would agree, but it is decorative because the heart is a symbol, not love. That type of template should be left blank when it comes to an image. A. Z. Colvin • Talk01:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: actually, this picture only represents clams and snails -- it does not represent chitons, tusk shells, brachiopods, crustaceans, horseshoe crabs, or sea urchin (mentioned on the template) or limpets, abalones, scallops (or dozens of other variants of gastropods and bivalves) or cephalopods (unmentioned, the latter which include the nautilus, above). Images are imperfect representations of even groups of physical objects, let alone ideas. That does not mean that they cannot provide useful visual representation or that they are only worth "a thousand meaningless words". HrafnTalkStalk(P)02:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still does not really matter. The watch is not a “visual” representation of ID. It just isn’t! I don’t see why this has to be defended over and over and over. It DOES NOT represent ID a whole, or even at all. The analogy does, the watch does not. A. Z. Colvin • Talk04:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)ID is, at its core, the teleological argument. The image in question IS a "visual representation" of the most widely-known concrete form of that argument (and thus most easily translatable into a visual representation) -- finding a watch. Your SHOUTED claim that it "DOES NOT represent ID a whole [sic]" is spurious, as it is very rare that any single image will represent a topic "as a whole", and I cannot see any indication in WP:MOSICON and WP:ICONDECORATION that they make this overly stringent requirement. HrafnTalkStalk(P)05:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the line, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic" at [2]? A watch does not represent ID. The analogy does, the watch does not. Worse yet, the article on the Watchmaker analogy does not even have a picture of a watch! (Probably because it is a decoration). So why should the template for intelligent design have a picture of a watch? It just doesn’t make sense. A. Z. Colvin • Talk04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EXCUSE ME? I don’t give a shit if you and others want it there. I do not, so I will fight it until we reach consensus. Don’t give me your bull about Argumentum ad nauseam. I “heard you the first time” and you are full of it. You are trying to rationalize keeping an absolutely useless (and likely confusing) image that does not represent the topic as a whole. Either we can have an edit war, or we can agree to something. There are a majority of dogmatic editors in here who want to keep it there way because “it’s pretty”. A. Z. Colvin • Talk05:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Azcolvin429, I will not "EXCUSE" you. (i)『I don’t give a shit if you and others want it there』violates both WP:CIVIL & WP:CONSENSUS. (ii) Calling the editors who disagree with you (which just happens to be everybody who has commented so far) "dogmatic" is both inCIVIL and also WP:POT given your "dogmatic" mass-removal of images from templates. (iii) Claiming that we『 want to keep it there way because 'it’s pretty'』is a misrepresentation of our comments, and thus a violation of WP:TALK. Such tactics don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning you any converts, and thus a consensus for your proposal. HrafnTalkStalk(P)05:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I will fight it until we reach consensus" - portraying it as a "fight" is unconstructive, and it almost reads like you are saying you will pursue this until you have your way. Which is not "consensus". Guettarda (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Guettarda said, goes for me too. And about editors who want to keep the image just because "it's pretty", I think I made it very clear in my comments that this is not about just being pretty, that a distinction exists between mere prettiness, as in the orchid, and appropriateness to the template. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having looked over this I see no reason to remove the image. The image is relevant to the topic, so there's no conflict with the cited guideline. Sure, you could replace it with a headshot of Dembski or something, but unlike this image, that would be distracting. I'm not especially wedded to this image, but it does the job of images in these navigation templates - it gives the reader a visual cue that allows them to recognise the connection to a given series. It's a simple, clean image, and while it's not iconic, the idea is sufficiently iconic that the logic of choosing the image is clear to anyone with a more than passing interest in the topic. And that's all we need - something that serves as a sort of visual mnemonic, that reminds the reader that yes, this topic is about ID. So it's obviously something worth keeping in the template. Guettarda (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because Template:evolution3 and Template:Creationism2 were cited at the top of this thread, it occurred to me to take a look at their recent histories. There was indeed some discussion about image removal at the talk page of the first (although another editor has now restored that image), but not at the talk page of the second. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace or remove per my comments at WT:Manual of Style (icons). The pocket watch image is used as the "standard" image with {{Portal|Time}} on many articles, to link to Portal:Time. It is confusing to re-use the same image for this topic as well. I know nothing about intelligent design, but it was pointed out to me that the image was chosen because of the watchmaker analogy. However, that link doesn't even appear in this template! It seems like the image is understood by editors very close to the topic, but for casual outside readers like myself, it means nothing. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 19:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, since it was me who pointed you here, I think I should point out that I wanted to put a link to watchmaker analogy into the template, but was reverted on the basis that the reverting editor didn't want the image at all and felt that the link would make it harder to justify removing the image. I'd like to put that link back. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
is used by that project in all templates that I saw except for two uboxes (the third contains the image I linked here) Not sure if that will make a difference to deliberations here or not, but it does not appear on public Wikiproject History. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice23:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a "cool image". However as it is of the mechanism of a modern watch, I do have concerns that it takes us further away from the watchmaker analogy as (i) that analogy was devised in the 1802 with a pocket watch in mind (one such as the original image) & (ii) it was worded as a 'first glance' examination of the watch, not one taking it apart to look at its innards. I wouldn't object violently to the new image, but I do express a preference for the original -- or something similarly holistic & antique. HrafnTalkStalk(P)11:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the older image, the one used by Time, myself. But I certainly agree that image seems overused. As regards "newer" watch innards, I have no problem with the current image; we're not, for example, showing a digital watch but a watch which is gears and springs as watches were circa 1800. There are surely minor differences but overall I think the image conveys a watch which would be worked on by a watchmaker. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice18:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Pocket watch.
With regard to the inside versus the outside of a watch, you raise a good point, but I think it's one that can be argued either way. Please see, for instance, the first bullet point at Watchmaker analogy#The Watchmaker argument. Also, seeing now that the caption in the template has been changed to alt text, I feel like we have a circular argument: it's confusing to show any watch image because it's unclear what a watch has to do with IP, so I suggested a caption to explain it, but then you have to remove the caption from view because the caption is confusing. So I added a link to watchmaker analogy to the template, and I hope that it suffices. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I've previously stated, it is about an idea whose most famous, and most concrete, metaphor is finding a watch. Ideally, it should perhaps be of the watch lying on grass or rocks or a beach -- but we go with what we've got. HrafnTalkStalk(P)09:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but I feel that it's as much about the intricate workings (whether seen or unseen), as it is about finding a watch. But I also don't feel strongly. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we go with that one, it would be desirable to crop it. Beyond that, I'm pretty much neutral. Do any editors have strong opinions about this? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cropping it. As before, I'm pretty much neutral. Maybe leaning very slightly towards being satisfied with what we have now, but, whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not acceptable - page creators aren't supposed to untag their own pages. Especially not when it appears to be a simple T3 - a "substantial duplications of another template" that is not in use. Guettarda (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Centre for Intelligent Design has received only very thin third party coverage, one article of which describing it as "only a website and an office". It has, for example received far less publicity than its predecessor, Truth in Science, or numerous other topics related to ID. It is therefore inappropriate that it be included in this template. HrafnTalkStalk(P)05:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the Polanyi Center seems to have little significance and is probably inappropriate for the template. ISCID seems to have demonstrated the failure of the ID movement to produce any science to publish, even when they set up their own journal to publish it. Don't know if the article is particularly worth linking, it is a good point that the template is probably best confined to top tier articles on the topic area. . . dave souza, talk16:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the authors section that I proposed, and this seems to have automatically added the template to every page that it links. Or at least it started showing up for me, whereas I wasn't seeing it when I wrote that comment. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
