Template talk:Sarah Palin

Image

Wouldn't Image:Palin1.JPG be a better image? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the other is more professional in appearance. rootology (C)(T) 16:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I switched the pic to one that appeared on the Wikipedia main page a few days ago.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. rootology (C)(T) 16:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That one's just as good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template overburdened

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]

Interviews with Katie Couric

I would suggest linking to this from Public image and reception of Sarah Palin. Though it could be directly merged into the article. Hekerui (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2009 (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]

I was debating whether to list the book Going Rouge: Sarah Palin, An American Nightmare in the book and media coverage group or in the parodies group. Since only the title of the book is a parody, the book itself has nothing to do with her book, Going Rogue: An American Life, I arrived at the conclusion that the book Going Rouge: Sarah Palin, An American Nightmare belongs in the book and media coverage group. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies and pranks?

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. Kelly hi! 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. Kelly hi! 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]
It improves readability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:21, 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]

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. — Newslinger talk 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]
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]
  • Exclude Reluctant include per discussion below Muboshgu 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]
Check out Handling connective trivia. Out instance here is almost exactly the same as the "Mecha-Streisand" example they give (which, btw, gets about 4000 views a month Bonewah (talk) 14:33, 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]

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.