Redirect

Wrapper

Concluded?

discuss here about location of proposed redirect discussion

There was a posting above by editor Pigsonthewing that cited therecent MfD about the Quote template used by the Signpost, and called for redirecting the template. There was then back-and-forth editing betweenUser:Pigsonthewing andUser: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 atwt: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:

Therecent 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 toWT: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? --doncram19:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think it can be discussed at WT:POST, deferring to the Signpost editor's preference. --doncram19:50, 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]
  • AsDavid 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 edits20:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The community consensus in that discussion appears to be keep.Gamaliel(talk)20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keepbut 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. --doncram20:39, 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. --doncram21:55, 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. --doncram20:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doncram, this is the page for discussing theWikipedia: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 edits21:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THE TOPIC, HERE. Thissection is clearly about where a proposal should be discussed. --doncram21:55, 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. --doncram22:10, 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. --doncram22:43, 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 beenwarned 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 edits23:43, 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, byChed, 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. --doncram00:21, 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 edits00:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]