Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Quote

This page was nominated for deletion on 21 October 2014. The result of the discussion was keep/merge.

Redirect[edit]

The recent MfD for this template closed as "keep/merge" and the closing admin, User:David Levy, commented "The suggested solution of merging the two templates (thereby converting this one to a wrapper) enjoys greater support and is consistent with decisions reached in similar situations, so those with the necessary know-how should feel free to proceed". Since there are no unique parameters requiring a wrapper, a redirect is equivalent. However, when I redirected the template, today, I was reverted twice, with no summary either time, by The ed17, who also claimed, on my talk page "The MfD was closed as a clear keep". That claim is bogus. The template should again be redirected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation moved to WT:POST, the proper forum. --The ed17

First, there is disagreement about where any proposed revert should be discuss. Please see next section "discuss here about location of proposed revert discussion". If necessary, I suppose there could be a "vote" process and an RFC to attract attention. I suggest settling the location, by discussion at the next section. --do ncr am 19:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ed17, reverting anything but vandalism without a summary is ill-advised. You're setting off on the wrong foot. Alakzi (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-issue...I think The ed17 was justified in being brief, given past history, and was very clear: they moved the conversation and linked to it and posted at Pigsonthewing's Talk page, and Pigsonthewing edited at thte linked page. While edit summaries often are helpful in communicating, there was no lack of clarity in communication by The ed17. I restored The ed17's comment above. --do ncr am 20:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Not leaving edit summaries is a non-issue? That's a new one. Alakzi (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I immediately left a talk page message. This is a moot point. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read (or re-read) Wikipedia:Rollback. Talk page messages are helpful, but they aren't a substitute for responsible use of the rollback tool. —David Levy 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, Ed. Your summary-less revert was noticed and reverted before you'd managed to leave a message, thus setting the mood. Alakzi (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the edit where you accused me of "chicanery and shenanigans"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are limited circumstances in which it's appropriate to use the rollback tool (thereby labeling the revision "minor") to revert others' good-faith edits. This was not one of them. —David Levy 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that use of rollback would have been inappropriate. However, The ed17 did not use rollback, they reverted, which is different. No violation of rollback usage guidelines. (Unless what I can see in History here is incorrect. I see no use of rollback tool. Are there are view settings which disallow me from seeing it?) --do ncr am 00:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should see the same edit summaries that anyone else does. When you say "here", are you referring to this talk page (and describing this reversion)? The rollbacks discussed (first / second) occurred at the project page. —David Levy 01:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see it is just the "m" for minor and the auto-generated edit summary like "Reverted edits by Pigsonthewing (talk) to last version by The ed17" that indicate rollback was used, in the reversions on the project page (but not in the reversions on the talk page, where rollback was not used). I thought it was indicated differently. --do ncr am 02:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my closure was based on a determination that there was not consensus to replace Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Quote with Template:Pull quote in its current form. (Otherwise, I'd have closed the discussion with an outcome of "redirect".)

As I addressed in great detail, the matter at hand relates not to "unique parameters" that exist currently, but to intentional style differences. The "wrapper" solution would entail adding an optional parameter that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Quote calls.

So Andy erred in concluding that "a redirect is equivalent". However, I see no reason to doubt that he was acting in good faith, and I find The ed17's abuse of the rollback tool troubling. I can't imagine why he viewed the redirection's reversion as urgent, let alone something akin to undoing vandalism, let alone an action to repeat after another editor expressed concern regarding the absence of an explanation. —David Levy 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why Pigsonthewing viewed the redirect as urgent, to be repeated after The ed18 indicated disagreement by reverting (even if using rollback). As The ed17 said by 19:16 at wt:POST: "First, Andy, it was an MfD, and I assumed you'd realize that you were being reverted because you hadn't discussed your edits beforehand (again; this seems to be a reoccurring pattern). The quote templates are not the same, and I don't see a compelling reason why they should be merged." Pigsonthewing received that before his 3rd reversion here, and he never answered (he moved the discussion back here, but left that comment stranded there, and never replied about discussing edits beforehand, even though turns out to have been wrong.) I see no apology to The ed17, and lack of explanations, and antagonism vs. me below and at my Talk page, as troubling. --do ncr am 02:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating reverts, as it were. He reverted the project page once, justifiably, 'cause no explanation was provided by Ed. He then reverted Ed (and your) moving his comment to another forum, with reason -- why would you not request his consent? Indeed, on the contrary, the only antagonism I'm seeing emanates from you and Ed. Alakzi (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that cleared it up for me. Alakzi (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapper[edit]

I've stated a wrapper at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Quote/Sandbox; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Quote/Testcases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I beat you to it... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; thank you. Not bad for a page with "one watcher"... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concluded?[edit]

Alakzi's comment further below indicates this is concluded, that there will be no redirect implemented, as if Alaksi's 20:55 comment above was the end. Edoktor and Pigsonthewing continued, above, after that, however. Is it in fact concluded that the redirect originally implemented by Pigsonthewing, and repeated, is overturned eventually by the use of a wrapper implemented by Edoktor? And does this not change appearance in any past or current Signpost page? Perhaps then this is done. Are there no changes in future convenience of use for Signpost editors, and no objections by Signpost editors? --do ncr am 00:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, a redirect will not be implemented; a wrapper was what was decided at the MfD. Alakzi (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

discuss here about location of proposed redirect discussion[edit]

For goodness sake, people, all this garbage about hatting one another's comments needs to cease. The issue appears to have been satisfactorily resolved, insofar as the template still yields the same outward appearance while having its code adjusted as necessary. No further discussion needs to occur on this Signpost-specific template at the present juncture, unless I am missing something. Thank you. -- Go Phightins! 01:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was a posting above by editor Pigsonthewing that cited the recent MfD about the Quote template used by the Signpost, and called for redirecting the template. There was then back-and-forth editing between User:Pigsonthewing and User:The ed17 about where this discussion should take place, with each reverting twice. If there must be a discussion, I think it should not really matter where the discussion takes place, and I think that Pigsonthewing, who wants a discussion to take place, should likewise not really care where. I think The ed17 is a Signpost editor, and that it's best to defer to them because they care and because the issue will only affect The Signpost. Thus I suggest allowing the discussion to be at WT:POST, specifically at wt:POST#Redirect quote template. I reverted Pigsonthewing's 2nd revert, and hope all can agree to discuss the matter at the WT:POST location. However, while composing this followup, I see that Pigsonthewing reverted again, for a 3rd revert removing what 2 other editors placed above, instead.

What Pigsonthewing has repeatedly edited to display above has evolved to:

The recent MfD for this template closed as "keep/merge" and the closing admin, User:David Levy, commented "The suggested solution of merging the two templates (thereby converting this one to a wrapper) enjoys greater support and is consistent with decisions reached in similar situations, so those with the necessary know-how should feel free to proceed". Since there are no unique parameters requiring a wrapper, a redirect is equivalent. However, when I redirected the template, today, I was reverted twice, with no summary either time, by The ed17, who also claimed, on my talk page "The MfD was closed as a clear keep". That claim is bogus. The template should again be redirected. --Pigsonthewing

What The ed17 has repeatedly edited to show above is:

Conversation moved to WT:POST, the proper forum. --The ed17

Let me suggest that the template change not be discussed, until the location of discussion is set. Please discuss location of discussion here, rather than at wp:ANI or wp:3RR for now, I suggest. Also, Pigsonthewing, let's you and I discuss your new posting at my Talk page, there, not here. The question is, should a new redirect proposal be discussed at "WT:POST" or not? --do ncr am 19:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it can be discussed at WT:POST, deferring to the Signpost editor's preference. --do ncr am 19:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I'm very near to simply moving it back into my userspace and avoiding the mess that Pingsonthewing seems intent on rekindling. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As David Levy also noted in his closing statement, "the move to userspace had no impact on this closure. Such a change doesn't confer immunity to deletion". You're going to have to acknowledge the community consensus as determined in that MfD; you have no veto. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The community consensus in that discussion appears to be keep. Gamaliel (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep but make it a wrapper. Since this template is functionally identical to the pull quote one, a redirect serves the exact same function. Alakzi (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE TOPIC, HERE, of where a new proposal to redirect should occur. I hope editors won't mind too much if i "hat" or remove off-topic comments, in this section. --do ncr am 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree that there needs to be a new proposal. Alakzi (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE TOPIC, HERE, about where a proposal should be made and be discussed, either Yes or No. --do ncr am 21:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there are very different deletion rules applied to userspace pages. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE TOPIC, HERE, of where a new proposal to redirect should occur. I hope editors won't mind too much if i "hat" or remove off-topic comments, in this section. --doncram 20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Doncram, this is the page for discussing the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Quote template. Colleagues are free to do so. Do not hat or remove other's comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE TOPIC, HERE. This section is clearly about where a proposal should be discussed. --do ncr am 21:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[END: OFF-TOPIC TO BE HATTED SOON --doncram]

Currently browsing Commons looking for a picture of a Moot Monster. Anyone have suggestions? [EDIT] Found a distant cousin... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, too, but yes, i get that. If there is no on-topic discussion, I will hat this all soon. I object to Pigsonthewing deliberately directly editing my comments here, with hypocritical call for no one to edit his. --do ncr am 22:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring, in this edit, comments by me alone, without in this edit removing anyone else's. By the way, in a previous edit of mine, I moved this section before what I perceived to be a same-level section inserted above. I see now that the other section was a sub-section, and won't dispute that. However, I object to deliberately disrespectful behavior by Pigsonthewing in this discussion. As he notes at my Talk page, he has "no respect" for my attempt to manage discussion here. I was obviously trying to keep this section's discussion focussed, and he has obviously disrespected that, including by, hypocritically, editing my comments. --do ncr am 22:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus decision has been implemented (the page won't be redirected) and this whole discussion can now be closed. Do I have your permission to do that, doncram? Alakzi (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You also inserted an unsigned comment, between one of my comments and the comment to which I was replying. I'm moving it, as I save this edit, though it would be better if you deleted it. As I said to you on your talk page, "Do not hat my comments". You have since been warned about this by an uninvolved admin. Other than undoing your damage to my and others' comments, none of your comments here have been touched, much less "edited", by me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is utter crap, sorry, as if you are playing to some crowd. By moving "BEGIN: OFF-TOPIC--TO BE HATTED SOON" to sit by "END: OFF-TOPIC --TO BE HATTED SOON", you blatantly change the meaning of my edits, rendering it non-sensical. In this edit I move it back, and further explicitly sign those two phrases, though it was completely clear before. You note comment at my Talk page, by Ched, who was concerned about edits that refine or move someone else's comment to change its meaning. Ched was incorrect that any of my edits did that, as I replied, last at 23:24. Your edit just now at 23:43, and other edits on this page in which you removed comments by me (while I was careful not to remove yours), are of direct concern in that important way, however. --do ncr am 00:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed [BEGIN: OFF-TOPIC--TO BE HATTED SOON --doncram] from between my comment and the one to which it was a reply. You are not going to hat my comments. You are not going to make them nonsensical by divorcing them from their predecessors. Stop this now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.