Template talk:Sathya Sai Baba

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sathya Sai Baba template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Template:Sathya Sai Baba

This template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles

Hinduism

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles

Splitting up followers and opponents

With regard to the recent edits by different editors, I do not see a need to unnecessarily split up opponents and followers and I have outlined my reasonings here and here, please read. It will make the template unnecessarily larger, unsightly and incoherent, especially when it is planned to be tacked onto articles with relatively little content. And there is no need to split them up when they are all headed under "Followers and opponents", naturally entailing their being grouped together. Basically if and when more SSB-related articles are created and merit inclusion in this template then there may be a good reason to enlarge this template. Otherwise no. Ekantik ^talk 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I fail to see how non-separation of followers and opponents would serve to confuse readers when they are grouped as "Followers and opponents" (according to this edit summary). Also, the low number of opponents does not warrant a separate heading. It makes the template unnecessarily larger especially for a number of articles that have extremely little content. As I said before, we can revisit this issue if and when more SSB-related articles are created and appropriate for inclusion. Thoughts? Ekantik ^talk 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that, as the template stands right now, the 'Opponent's section is currently duplicating entries from the 'Followers' section. Whoever edited this hasn't put much thought into it, I'd venture. Ekantik ^talk 18:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Existing Model - I too see no need to split up "followers" and "opponents". This type of approach will only create problems rife with conflict later on... Alphabetical sorting of individuals within the template is not only much more appropriate, it is also much more encyclopedic. This is not on my talk page so please let me know if something more major happens with this thread, by posting to my talk. Thank you for your time. Smee 16:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Indifferent, leaning towards splitting up subsections - Sorry Ekantik, upon looking at the changes to the template, it actually looks okay. And upon further deliberation, It is probably pretty easy to determine who is a follower and who is an "opponent", (though "opponent" might not be the right words, perhaps "critic" would be better... ), I actually changed my mind and don't think the subsections will produce controversy later on, only help the reader/editor to navigate... Smee 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough. I personally think neither followers nor opponents should even be in the template as I don't think they are notable enough to be in an SSB-template and I was just modifying the old one, but if a majority thinks it will be beneficial then let's go for it. Let's hope that there is a limit to the number of people added (of course not every SSB follower/opponent with a WP article can be included) and let's hope that no disputations arise. Ekantik ^talk 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here here. Smee 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ekantik,

Thank you for working in the spirit of equity and for making it easy for the reader. PEACETalkAbout 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]