Talk:Gustav Holst/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Gustav Holst. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hidden comments
The problem with hidden comments along the lines of "Don't add an infobox because a WikiProject doesn't like them" is that it has a chilling effect on editors who don't understand that Wikiprojects have no standing to demand that an infobox may not be added. The decision on having an infobox or not is a matter for consensus on each article, and that is policy. If there has already been a discussion on a particular article, and a consensus reached not to have an infobox, then it is helpful to have an html comment drawing the editor's attention to that (possibly archived) discussion, and I'd be very much in favour of maintaining such notes. That is, however, not the situation here, as I can find no previous discussion of an infobox on this article. It is not acceptable to have a note which effectively prevents any consensus from being discussed, as if the matter were already settled by fiat of a single editor or Wikiproject. We build this encyclopedia by allowing people to edit, not forbidding it for no good reason. --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oh dear rex, a bit of overkill on the hyperbole there! "Chilling"? "Fiat"? "Forbidding"? A note that "prevents any consensus from being discussed"? Untrue, of course: it does not prevent anything of the sort, and the talk page is still open and accessible to all who wish to discuss things. What the note does do, is to alert others that the addition may be contentious on this article; it is, thus, an attempt to avoid edit warring. – SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- All of it is true, otherwise why are you so keen to see the misinformation kept. Or have you actually convinced yourself that a Wikiproject can instruct editors not to edit? A content issue canot possibly be "contentious" if it has never been discussed. --RexxS (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
"All of it is true"
: patently not! – SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
First we were told that failure to have a hidden comment made it hard for editors to know not to add an infobox. Now you say that the hidden comment has a "chilling effect." The fact is that you just want to have a pile of code at the top of every article containing redundant infobox information, even in these arts biographies, usually riddled with errors and always emphasizing unimportant factoids at the expense key information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC
ArbCom
The question on the hidden texts (which has widened into a more general thread) has been raised at Arbcom: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: Infoboxes. Interested parties are open to make comments should they wish. – SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- Since there has been no significant comment on the hidden texts discussion on this talkpage for two weeks, or on the subsequent infobox discussion for a week, and neither thread has produced a consensus for change, I have archived these discussions which for reference purposes can be found at Talk:Gustav Holst/Archive 2 Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- My archiving was reverted by User:Izno, who was re-reverted by User:Cassianto. Izno then took the matter here. I have no interest in pursuing yet another conflict on this page, so I am restoring the discussions and leaving the decision on closure to an uninvolved editor or admin. Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton and Cassianto: Thanks. I hate dragging things to ANI and just didn't want to see an edit war on the talk page about whether something should be archived, given that the thing really should be closed by Someone Who Doesn't Care based on the contentiousness. @Cassianto: You are incorrect regarding my involved status--I made a comment in the formal RFC above. --Izno (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think you'd better just let this go now. Any respect you thought you might've had has now been lost by your eagerness to run to ANI. I think you've come out of it quite badly and you've made yourself look rather foolish. CassiantoTalk 15:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't presume to have any respect at all. So thank you for that previous credit. :^) --Izno (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Izno, just so you know, you had earned my respect some time ago; your technical prowess is exceedingly in demand. My respect has not waned as of this posting, and I look forward to seeing you around this great project. Sincerely.--John Cline (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't presume to have any respect at all. So thank you for that previous credit. :^) --Izno (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think you'd better just let this go now. Any respect you thought you might've had has now been lost by your eagerness to run to ANI. I think you've come out of it quite badly and you've made yourself look rather foolish. CassiantoTalk 15:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton and Cassianto: Thanks. I hate dragging things to ANI and just didn't want to see an edit war on the talk page about whether something should be archived, given that the thing really should be closed by Someone Who Doesn't Care based on the contentiousness. @Cassianto: You are incorrect regarding my involved status--I made a comment in the formal RFC above. --Izno (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- My archiving was reverted by User:Izno, who was re-reverted by User:Cassianto. Izno then took the matter here. I have no interest in pursuing yet another conflict on this page, so I am restoring the discussions and leaving the decision on closure to an uninvolved editor or admin. Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)