Template talk:Old Colony League

Rejected members?

Honestly, it seems odd and POV to me to see a section for "Rejected members". Especially with QHS and NQHS as rivals, the former part of the League and the latter apparently "rejected". I hope no one minds, but I'm going to do away with this part until it can be cited. --Aepoutre (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I also contend that a "former members" category is silly. If we really need this information, it should be in an article. There isn't an article on the Old Colony League, not surprisingly. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC) [See User talk:Ktr101#Old_Colony_League. --Aepoutre (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)]

Undid reverted edit. Still waiting on an Old Colony League article (wasn't linked in reverted edit despite a promise to start it [1] and its existence, albeit entirely{{unreferenced}}). I contend that per WP:NAV, the template's inclusion of "former schools" included unrelated topics: a navbox is only relevant for schools that are part of the league. This information belongs in the history section of an Old Colony League article that meets WP:VERIFY standards (a core content guideline that a navbox conveniently circumvents). Since I contend that inclusion violates guidelines and the argument "for" doesn't seem to make any claim for the improvement of Wikipedia (see diff above and a noticeable lack of two-way conversation here), it should be left out until the original author can provide some valid reason for its inclusion. --Aepoutre (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I'd like to go on record for encouraging improvement of Wikipedia here: do the research and create well-written, well-sourced articles on the subject instead of focusing the energy on creating templates of dubious utility. If an editor has the time to play with the template, that same editor could be using said time to research and write useful articles instead. --Aepoutre (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, one more thing, since I've had this conversation before about a template that I ended up being deleted: with regards to WP:RS and WP:VERIFY for the Old Colony info. and my comment about use of time to improve Wikipedia, WP:BURDEN certainly applies here. That being said, I'd be happy to help in contributing if invited, as I thought I'd had been (see diff above). --Aepoutre (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)