Template talk:Intelligent Design

message: what's the logic? --goethean ॐ 19:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. FeloniousMonk 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ordering 

message: 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.
I don't know what id is appropriate, though, so I just took the parameter out completely.  Hope that doesn't break something else...  Rossami (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be fine. FeloniousMonk 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  id="toc" 

message: 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. FeloniousMonk 03:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor capitalization of the initial "I" for consistency with other links on the template (Intelligent designer, Intelligent design movement, Intelligent design in politics). Tim Smith 11:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Lower case vs upper case 

message: The Nautilus is on the cover of one of William A. Dembski's books, The Design Revolution.  See arn for evidence.  CM (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Really? The watch dates back to Paley's watchmaker argument, which is centrally connected to the entire notion of ID. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The William Paley who died in 1805?  Or did he have a great great grandson with the same name involved in intelligent design?  CM (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes that William Paley. If you read Intelligent design it explains the connection. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, well, okay.  You don't like the shell?  CM (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't care much one way or another but the watch makes more sense thematically with the topic. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  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)
replies: text: So Gutzon Borglum is the intelligent designer?  Who knew? •Jim62sch• 10:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter.  The Nautilus looks cool.  TableMannersC·U·T 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nautilus image versus watch image 

message: My impression is that Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District has had both far more publicity and a far greater impact than the Santorum Amendment on Intelligent design, yet it is the Santorum Amendment not Kitzmiller that is on this template. Should this be altered? HrafnTalkStalk 16:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Kitzmiller is much more significant, and the Santorum Amendment can be considered a subset of Intelligent design in politics which is on the template. .. dave souza, talk 11:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It's got a longer title, which makes the template slightly wider -- but I don't think that should cause any problems. HrafnTalkStalk 13:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kitzmiller versus the Santorum Amendment 

message: 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?  -Selket Talk 20:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I now notice the link is already there.  Also, the  template should suffice at the bottom of these articles. --Selket Talk 20:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. HrafnTalkStalk 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual use of this and Creationism template 

message: Three relevant articles are missing from the template:
*Free Speech on Evolution
*Stand Up For Science
*Strengths and weaknesses of evolution
Should these be added, or is the template restricted to the most notable subjects?
— Hyperdeath(Talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: '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. HrafnTalkStalk 17:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Thinking about it, most of the individual campaigns within Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns (above plus Kansas evolution hearings, Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism, Sternberg peer review controversy, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,  Academic Freedom bills, A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity) aren't included. I don't think that this is a bad thing -- a sidebar template should only be for the top-level articles within the subject -- adding all these in would make it unwieldy. The two that may be candidates are the aforementioned Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns and Neo-Creationism. HrafnTalkStalk 10:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Nobody objected, so I made the changes. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing articles 

message: I've created a slight modification to the template to include Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns and Neo-Creationism. It can be seen at User:Hrafn/sandbox. If nobody objects in the next couple of days I'll be WP:BOLD & update it here. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody objected, so I made the changes. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed modification

message: 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 • Talk 21:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 • Talk 07:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: No I'm suggesting that removing the image would not imped understanding and as such it is purely decorative Gnevin (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: A thousand meaningless words . As it add nothing unique, nothing that can't be communicated by words alone  Gnevin (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

text: What policy is that? Maybe I'm especially dense today, but I can't find any reference to policy in this discussion. Guettarda (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:MOSICON and WP:ICONDECORATION A. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 • Talk 04:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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" 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)

text: See the line, "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic" at ? 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 • Talk 04:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Argumentum ad nauseam -- stating the same argument over and over adds nothing to the conversation. We heard you the first time. Most (all?) of us disagree. Live with it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 • Talk 05:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I would further note that Azcolvin429's WP:POINT edit on his example above, , has already been reverted. It would appear that we're not the only ones disputing his extremist interpretation of these guidelines. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Az will I feel your frustration with the WP:ILIKEIT arguments being made here, WP:MOSICON is a guideline and as such local con can ignore it. We can make our case but we should be civil will we do it.  Gnevin (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: And by coincidence I have just come across this. This image seems to be overworked.--Charles (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

text: that is a cool image. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: That's a good image. And looks clearly distinct from the current pocket-watch image. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Looks good. I think it should also be added to the assessment templates (like the one at the top of this page) for consistency. Guettarda (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: would be happy with that.--Charles (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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?!?Advice 18:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Commons has more images... HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I love all these attempts to fit the round peg into the square hole Gnevin (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: This is not a template about watches ! Gnevin (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If you really want innards, then how about this... HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Image in template 

message: I'm going to leave to others any discussion of what the History project might do. But as for this template, I'd like to suggest :File:BwcOmega911a.jpg as the image to use, along with an image caption linking to watchmaker analogy. Would that be an improvement? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: that is a cool image. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: That's a good image. And looks clearly distinct from the current pocket-watch image. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Looks good. I think it should also be added to the assessment templates (like the one at the top of this page) for consistency. Guettarda (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: would be happy with that.--Charles (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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?!?Advice 18:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Commons has more images... HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I love all these attempts to fit the round peg into the square hole Gnevin (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: This is not a template about watches ! Gnevin (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If you really want innards, then how about this... HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Suggested replacement images

message: Per Tryptofish's request above. How would people feel about this as the template image? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cropped version of last proposal

message: I have placed a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design
* 
* 
* 
These are also associated with the ID Wikiproject, and use the same image. IMO whatever decision is reached should be consistent across the templates. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image elsewhere 

message: Editors may be interested to know that Azcolvin429 has created a duplicate of this template at :Template:IntelligentDesign2‎, without the disputed image. I WP:SPEEDYed it as T3, but Azcolvin429 reverted the tag. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Duplicate

message: 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)
thread_title:  Centre for Intelligent Design 

message: Is Michael Polanyi Center really deserving of a mention on this template? It was a short-lived organisation, garnering even shorter-lived attention -- which was mainly localised to Baylor itself. The Kansas evolution hearings for example were far more prominent, as was Expelled. Heck, even Truth in Science arguably received more/longer attention (and I'd hardly rate that as a top-tier article). The same probably goes for the now-moribund and never-particularly prominent International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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, talk 16:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agree with all the above, and don't feel we need to list a lot of centers in the template. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Polanyi Center 

message: :Template:Sidebar with heading backgrounds, on which this template is based, is up for deletion. I have created :Template:Intelligent Design/sandbox, based upon :Template:Sidebar, as a replacement. As far as I can see, there is no difference between them. Unless anybody objects, I'm intending taking this alteration live in a day or two. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: SOP so far as I can see; no objection. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went ahead and made the change.  Thanks for testing it. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parent template to be deleted 

message: First, why is this template apparently not present in the articles that are supposedly "part of the series"?
Second, I propose that it should include a Writers section featuring the most famous authors, like Michael Behe, Philip E. Johnson, and Wells & Dembski. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 21:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to articles, and add an authors section