Template talk:America's Next Top Model

message: This is just wrong! Why is the freakin template template protected? I made it! If it wasn't for me, there wouldn't be a friggin tempate to protect! The person who did it, did it wrong. And they are missing people! Wake up, whoever! Please  resolve this. Sorry about the explosion. I'm really mad. Sorry.
StarbuckDude 10:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You/I cannot make pages for the ones that were deleted... they were deleted for a reason and should not be resurrected. I will add the others into the template. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They were deleted because they do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements.  Many of the others may also be deleted in the future, so I am considering removing the contestants from the template completely... links to the contestants can easily be found on the article for each cycle. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This template is longer than many of the articles it's on. There's no need to make the template a List article unto itself - we don't need a link to every single model's article, especially now that many of them have been deleted. wikipediatrix 18:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed that up drastically.  Since each cycle has a list of that particular cycle's contestants, I removed all non-winners from the template while referring readers to the individual cycle pages for more details.  If anyone else has better ideas on how to handle this, feel free to take a crack at it. I won't be offended. — ArkansasTraveler 18:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. It was trimmed down, but now I see it's rather long again. Are the runners-up names really worth the placement? CarlosTheDwarf (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  template is needlessly long 

message: Only 2 of them have done something noteworthy. Why is this here?24.85.132.54 (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Does anyone disagree or is this pretty unanimous? Eatcacti (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I doing this right? Anyway yeah can you please fix it? I don't know how.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.84.139 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I took it out. I hope nobody gets angry but I really don't see the point. So far the only noteworthy runner up is Yaya. 98.201.84.139 (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  There are a lot of other contestants that didn't win the competition and managed to still do some noteworthy things, like Eugena for example. Wasn't she in like target ads and such? And what about Elyse, etc. So instead of having seperate groups, one for runner's up and so on. Why not have one group called "Noted Contestants" or something along those lines. THere's a lot of contestants that have their own article and I do think it's worth mentioning the ones that do. One way or another they were a product of ANTM. That's just what I think Oscar (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get rid of runners-up 

message: So should they be in alphabetical order or in ascending order by Cycle? People keep undoing my edit and moving Twiggy's name to the front. I don't get the reasoning behind that and it offends me a little that people undo my edits when I am trying to help without providing a good reason. 98.201.84.139 (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no discussion of what the order should be. The person who undid your edit twice only wrote, "Former judges are listed in order of most recent." There was no discussion of what the order should be, but I don't think it makes sense when you have the recent winner listed last. Eric Nicholson came after Kimora Lee anyway. I am sorry if it frustrated you. CarlosTheDwarf (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To make the template more user-friendly, I listed the judges by which Cycles they were on. CarlosTheDwarf (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But, that makes no sense, it's like you want to put Janice first and Twiggy last. Lets just keep with the format of the most recent judge, it makes more sense and looks better--Sugarcubez (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am unsure as to why you think that my rationale for changing the template was so that I wanted to have Janice first, considering that I had not edited the judges' names often. There is nothing random about my edit, and I am not sure why you made that claim. If you look at the edit, I listed the former judges in order by the Cycles they were on and in alphabetical order, within the Cycles. Janice was a judge from Cycles 1-4 and her surname is Dickinson, so it would make sense to put her at the front. As mentioned, the winners' names are listed from Cycle 1 to the most recent one. My edit was an attempt to make it more consistent with order of the winners.
Furthermore, as another user has mentioned, the order of "Twiggy • Janice Dickinson • Kimora Lee Simmons • Nolé Marin • Eric Nicholson • Beau Quillian" does not make sense. The names are neither in ascending or descending order nor in alphabetical order.
I was merely attempting to stop the edit wars and have the template be more consistent. If you are going to keep undoing the edits simply to have the template in the way that you want, I suggest that you look into reading the pages about the three-revert rule and edit wars.  CarlosTheDwarf (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Good choice. The other person needs to grow up and get over it!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.92.235 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No fuss from me. I don't think the names were in alphabetical order. The order used to be "Twiggy • Janice Dickinson • Kimora Lee Simmons • Nolé Marin • Eric Nicholson • Beau Quillian" but from what I have researched, Twiggy's name needs to go at the end. One of the users inferred that I wanted Janice's name first, just for the heck of it. Dude, I really don't care, just as long as it's an order that makes sense. CarlosTheDwarf (talk) 00:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: someone is being sneaky :(  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.132.54 (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past judges' orders 

message: I tried to add them but it just replaced the runners up. PLEASE HELP!!! Guthiererika10 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the point of this section? I don't even think the template needs it. Honestly, it should just list the winners and if people want info on the other contestants, just go to the Wiki for each cycle! 24.85.155.102 (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Runners Up 

message: I need to lock this template because unregistered users editing spoilers on this template to cause NOR. This cause is false information, only registered users can edit this template. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock this template 

message: Hey...
The victor for cycle 15 is Ms Ann Ward, and not Ms Chelsey Hersley. :)
Regards
220.255.1.122 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, the problem was even deeper than that, with over half of them switched. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Victor for Cycle 15 

message: I like that other contestants with Wikipedia pages are featured in the template now. But could "alumni" be changed to "alumnae," since there are no male conestants?
143.229.191.148 (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluralization 

message: The changes made today do not improve the navigation template, as well as removing links to models that have articles, models were added that do not have articles "just to complete the boxes". as this is a Navigation template it's use is to aid linking between ANTM related pages, there seems no logic to removing some just because they did not come in the top two and adding non-links to complete the set. Mtking (edits)  06:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Frietjes (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes on 3 November 2012