Talk:List of editors-in-chief of the largest newspapers in Canada

Question

Is this template really necessary, or is it just another WP:TCREEP-violating example of templating for the sake of templating? I think it's the latter, though I'm willing to listen to differing opinions... Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a great template. At a minimum, it needs to be removed from articles such as Globe and Mail -- if it exists at all, it should be restricted to articles pertaining to editors included in the template. As for whether it is necessary of not, the subject is a discrete one better handled by a category. Moreover, the template could become unmanageable since "major newspaper" is so subjective. Just looking at it for a minute or two, myself I wondered why aren't Le Devoir, the Toronto Sun, the Journal de Montréal, Le Soleil, the Vancouver Province included? I'm sure others will think of different newspapers. I would also note that the template isn't even remotely comprehensive, as it really only captures recent editors. As such, its value is quite limited. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't subjective, it's the ten largest newspapers in Canada. Though the title could make that clear - I'll tweak it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The cut-off is itself arbitrary and subjective. For example, the editor-in-chief of Le Devoir carries a lot more influence than the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do we even need a template for "editors of the ten largest newspapers in Canada"? Why isn't categorization sufficient — and even if templating it is seen as useful, why on earth would we want one single mega-template that links everybody who ever edited ten different newspapers, instead of a template only for editors of The Globe and Mail, a separate template only for editors of the National Post, a separate template only for the Toronto Star, and on and so forth? Why would we want them all squashed into one? Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A category does not put editors in order, one cannot tell looking at a category who the current or first editor of the newspaper is. In addition, people may be interested in the current editorship of Canadian media, not just in the history of the Globe and Mail - hence the template serves another purpose. Rather than having separate "Editors of the G&M" and "Current Canadian Editors" templates on each biography, we have a single template. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Template problems

Count me as another who agrees with User:Sherurcij and User:Skeezix1000 ... Is it reasonable to assume that someone reading the biography of a 19th century journalist who was editor of The Gazette for some time will be possessed by an overwhelming urge to find out who the editor of the Vancouver Sun was in 1988? It seems that these lists, if they are in fact necessary, are best confined to (a) lists within the Wikipedia articles dealing with the newspapers in question; (b) separate articles dealing with one newspaper at a time, or at least one community at a time, i.e. List of editors of La Presse (Montreal) or List of editors of Montreal daily newspapers; and/or (c) navboxes dealing with one publication at a time, along with a navbox showing current editors only for newspapers meeting some criteria.

Also there's the question of updating it. According to the list at List_of_the_largest_Canadian_newspapers_by_circulation, Ottawa Citizen and Winnipeg Free Press should be dropped from this list, to be replaced by Calgary Herald and The Province (of Vancouver). That will yield a 10-newspaper list where the top nine entries are all from Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver; although of course two of the Toronto entries are "national" newspapers. _{```</sub> t o l l <sub>`</sub> b o o t h <sub>`</sub> w i l l i e <sub>``</sub> $1.25 PLEASE <sub>```} 03:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I remain in agreement. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It has been three and a half years, and nobody has spoken in defence of this template except its creator. I have removed it from the articles on which it had been placed. Could no one please add it to articles absent some effort to address the concerns raised above, and with consensus on whether it should be used. My own view is, if it is saved at all, that it should be converted to a list. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)