This template is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
I reduced the sheer amount of links in the template to make it more usable. I hope this is regarded as an improvement.
Hekerui (
talk) 17:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm adding it to the media coverage section.--
The lorax (
talk) 05:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Levi Johnson
{{editsemiprotected}} Shouldn't Levi Johnson be included in the template, either under the 'Family' or 'Related Articles' headings? Not only did he play a part in her campaign and it's aftermath, but he also is the father of her grandson.
Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this template. The {{editsemiprotected}} template is meant to allow non-autoconfirmed users to make changes to semi-protected templates. You need to make a specific request, not a general suggestion. For instance. "Please add 'Levi Johnson (Grandson's father)' to the 'Family' section" or "Please add 'Levi Johnson' to the 'Related Articles' section." BTW, that's not the right name.
Celestra (
talk) 15:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Why are parody books listed here?
Books not written by her should be omitted in this box
Daimengrui (
talk) 04:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)reply
if it should appear here, then I suggest you modify Related Articles to Related Books and Articles and put all related written materials there. It gives me the impression that some of those works are written by her ( which is not the case ) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Daimengrui (
talk •
contribs) 04:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)reply
Now all books by her and all books about her are listed in separate groups.
Victor Victoria (
talk) 14:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)reply
What is the aim of listing Parodies and pranks including a porn movie that she did not act in this template? Don't tell me it is because the Wikipedia is uncensored. No major Encyclopedia like Brittanica would include a porn movie which she did not act in her page!
Kavas (
talk) 13:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Removal of "Who's Nailin' Paylin?"
Please see
here to participate in a discussion to remove mention of the the abovementioned porn film from this template.
Kellyhi! 09:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)reply
There clearly has been no immediate consensus there supporting the continued inclusion of the link. Given the potential
WP:BLP (among other) concerns, I've removed it unless and until there's clear support for its inclusion. jæs(talk) 04:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)reply
Sadly, we are back to this again. User Horse eyed Jack needs to read
WP:BLP And
WP:HTRIVIA. The inclusion of this contentious material was not appropriate for inclusion before and it still is not.
Bonewah (
talk) 13:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Neither BLP or HTRIVIA applies here... Seek a third opinion if you’re so hell bent on being puritanical. I strongly support the inclusion of all legitimate Sarah Palin Parodies, whether or not they are pornographic.
Horse Eye Jack (
talk) 16:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Collapsed portion of template
Given the number of pages this template appears on, I collapsed a portion of it to make it more page-friendly, as is done with
Template:Barack Obama. The collapsed portion contains the items that are only related to Palin.
Kellyhi! 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)reply
{{edit semi-protected}}
Requesting that
Kelly (
talk·contribs)'s above-described revision be reverted --I would, but this template is semi-protected. Although she claims that auto-collapsing the "Public Image" section is to make the navbox more "page-friendly", that justification seems questionable given his/her previous content removal actions taken on this page (see previous section), as the effective result is obscuring the appearance of the "Who's Nailin Paylin" link. Remember,
Wikipedia is not censored.
184.59.23.225 (
talk) 02:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I suppose technically we should based on BRD but I am hesitant to since I think it both improves readability and assists in that POV issue people see without removing the link. If you completely disagree I would be willing to revert the editor but I really would prefer if you let some discussion take place (which Kelly did not, of course). A couple days (if it is decided to go back) won;t be a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
Cptnono (
talk) 03:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree with Kelly's edit and think it is better and should be left alone and not reverted.
192.102.209.29 (
talk) 23:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm untranscluding this edit request as it appears that at least a few users concur it should not be done. I'm inclined to agree with the reasoning as well--while the cause for the change may or may not have been genuine, if the general consensus is that it looks better this way, then we can leave it.
Qwyrxian (
talk) 08:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Contribution?
Is Wikipedia getting paid to run this ad for Sara Palin ? If is it free, is that not a contribution to her political party or campaign ? Should that not be registered as a contribution under campaign law during her bit for Vice president ? Even though it is not money, it has value over $50. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Constitutionguard (
talk •
contribs) 08:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)reply
RFC about inclusion of a pornography link
NO
There is consensus not to include a link to Who's Nailin' Paylin? in this template. Most editors argue that the article on the adult film does not sufficiently help the reader understand the topic of
Sarah Palin to justify its inclusion. — Newslingertalk 09:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should this template contain a link to the adult film
Who's Nailin' Paylin?? 15:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Include The section “Parodies” should include all parodies of Sarah Palin which merit a wikipedia article, per
WP:CENSOR whether or not that article is for an X-rated parody is entirely irrelevant. I also note that it does not contain a link to the adult film but merely a link to the wikipedia page about the adult film, a different thing entirely.
Horse Eye Jack (
talk) 18:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Exclude We dont do this for any other BLP. Inclusion adds nothing to the article and runs afoul of several policies.
WP:PROFANE "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Removal of this link does none of those things.
WP:CENSOR itself notes that "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link" Is this link appropriate? I see no argument that it is.
Bonewah (
talk) 19:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
This is a template not an article, is that what you meant?
Horse Eye Jack (
talk) 02:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
We can add other noteworthy porn parodies to their navboxes.
WP:OTHERSTUFF may or may not exist, and that doesn't matter. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 22:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Include Noteworthy parody. I don't see how it fails
WP:PROFANE in any way. This appears to be an attempt at censorship based on
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 22:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Exclude I feel as though 99% of celebrities, especially those in politics, have some sort of pornographic parody out there. I don't believe this adds any added value to the article.
Cook907 (
talk) 20:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Well then its a good thing we’re discussing whether or not to include it in a template and not an article.
Horse Eye Jack (
talk) 09:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Exclude Simply not relevant
HAL333 16:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)reply
ExcludeReluctant include per discussion belowMuboshgu mentions
WP:IDONTLIKEIT above, but (1. that's an essay, and if what
Bonewah is saying below in the discussion section is true,
WP:CONSENSUS can and should supersede it (2. I'd like to be careful to avoid WP:ILIKEIT as well. Also, even though this is a template, there's a chance that including a porn parody to a living/recently deceased persons' navbox can unfairly and negatively impact that person and/or their family. That chance may be close to 0%, but it's not exactly 0%, and that's not a risk that I'll advocate for.
The only way I'd change my !vote is if there's substantial evidence that there's a significant amount of people reading about Sarah Palin actually wanting to navigate to the porn parody article; in that (rather unusual!) case, the damage is already done, and we need to be honest about that. (
Summoned by bot) --I dream of horses If you reply here, please
ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (
talk to me) (
My edits) @ 04:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC) (changed !vote on 05:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC))reply
I dream of horses Well the page for the pornographic parody has had 5,958 views in the last 30 days, a number so high even I’m shocked by it. Thats twice as many as visited the page for her SNL parodies (2,559). In fact the pornographic parody appears to be one of the most popular links in the template, its an order of magnitude more popular than most and besides for the family member pages I cant find a more popular one. Clearly people who read about Palin want to read this article more than almost any other article in the template.
Horse Eye Jack (
talk) 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Horse Eye Jack, remind me where I can view the page views for myself? It's not that I think you're lying; it's more that I'm still having a knee jerk reaction to not include the link (as one should!). --I dream of horses If you reply here, please
ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (
talk to me) (
My edits) @ 05:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)reply
I dream of horses That is a completely understandable knee jerk reaction, I’m still trying to figure out what could possibly be so interesting about a political pornographic parody to merit so much attention. To get page views you click “Page information” under “Tools” on the left hand side of the webpage, to save you the clicks heres a link [
[1]].
Horse Eye Jack (
talk) 05:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Horse Eye Jack: What a sad reflection of how people spend their time on the internet. I've changed my !vote accordingly. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please
ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (
talk to me) (
My edits) @ 05:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Thats totally absurd. The relevant metric here is how important is this link to the subject at hand. How many clicks the page gets is totally irrelevant.
Bonewah (
talk) 14:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes please do review
Wikipedia:Handling trivia, which makes crystal clear that what we are dealing with here isn't in any way trivia... If you want to nominate Nailin’ Palin for deletion on the grounds that it fails notability requirements you may do so. What you may not do is claim on this page that information which merits its own wikipedia page is merely trivia. This is also nothing like the Mecha-Streisand example given, either you are seriously mistaken or your editing is veering into tendinous territory.
Horse Eye Jack (
talk) 16:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Exclude It seems like this link would do more to promote the video and aid in the understanding of the subject.
MB 14:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Exclude - It is irrelevant and promotional.
Meatsgains(
talk) 02:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Exclude Serves no other purpose than to promote a porn video.
M.Bitton (
talk) 00:34, 23 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Discussion
I hasten to add that this has been discussed before at least
here or
here or directly above. As i recall, the consensus was to exclude. Perhaps
kelly (
talk·contribs) or
jæs recalls in greater detail.
Bonewah (
talk) 19:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Bonewah, typos happen to the best of us, but Wikipedia culture prevents people from even copyediting talk page, or RfC, comments. You might want to fix your ping to jæs there.
I dream of horses If you reply here, please
ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (
talk to me) (
My edits) @ 05:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.