Template talk:Bias

I don't think that this should be slapped on articles indiscriminately as has been done tonight. There should be some form of discussion. As those of you who read Andy's talk page know, I am not a big fan of templates except when needed, and one could argue that every article of substance on this site is biased in one way or another. MountainDew 00:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

The template is sort of redundant, considering we're supposed to have a bias here. I'm inclined to change it so say Anti-Christian Bias, and of course, it would be misused. I say delete it, combinations of other tags will do just fine. --Hojimachong^talk 00:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

As before, I agree completely with you, MountainDew. Some of this "tagging" is being done by force of habit by well-intentioned editors, but I suspect some of it is also a form of vandalism here.

This isn't Wikipedia. We don't need all the tags and stubs that exist on Wikipedia. Also, we favor concise articles here while Wikipedia implicitly favors longer, too wordy articles.--Aschlafly 00:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I must vouch for the first paragraph, Mr. Schlafly. It was quite a "culture shock" to come here from WP and see the utter lack of templates. It cooled down after several days, though. --Hojimachong^talk 00:42, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

• The users are gonna get a little time out for doing that....they have been involved in the talk on Andy's page about over-use of signs, etc. They didn't have a good intention whatsoever, and this isn't a court of law, so "proof" isn't needed. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 02:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)