Forum:TC:Template:GG

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Consensus is clear to keep the template at its new location regardless of how it was initially moved. Closing by an early snowball to prevent further devolution into WP:POINT.. Darth Culator ^(Talk) 18:34, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Template:GG ([[Talk:Template:GG|talk]] - history - links - logs)

This redirect represents a disturbing trend that is in danger of being established. With the ease of moving articles, templates—which are not as visible to editors as articles are—can be moved and cause major redirect conflicts. I have experienced in the past that such moves are rolled back or the redirect pages are deleted speedily to allow for the template to be restored to its original designation. A certain user has proposed moving several templates and has recently moved this one without informing the community for a consensus. I recently learned that he spoke a couple of people on IRC and they said, "sure." However, this sets a precedent of not having the editing community take part in making decisions that affect the editing community.

The reason for this particular move was stated that abbreviated initials or acronyms were "confusing" to editors. The template—{{GG}}, which was created in 2008, has never had any issues as the moving editor reported, and any future confusion is moot, since the products that the navbox template directs to are all out of print, so no future articles are forthcoming. Therefore, there will not be anyone to be confused.

This is similar to statements for other templates that have already had a consensus reached concerning their current separate existence.

Moving for the sake of moving is not a license to "be bold." There has to be a constructive reason for doing so. Therefore, I am requesting that this template redirect be deleted so that the template can be restored to its former state. If there is a legitimate reason to move the template, then the the user can propose moving it in a Consensus track discussion.

Allowing this move to remain opens the door for more template moves to take place without consensus, and remain moved until a consensus is reached to restore them. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 09:38, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, it has been established that CT is not something necessary for the moving of templates, and the point of waiting around for two weeks to get anything done is a point of contention that is actually on both sides of this camp. The issue is mainly that visible discussion was not had concerning the move a template. There have been other attempts to move other templates that were discussed on their respective talk pages, but this move was done without the benefit of the Wookieepedia community to have a say or even know such discussion reached a conclusion on IRC. No transparency was made. The issue is this: how many templates (not just this one that did not have many articles linked to it) need to be moved without a general agreement to such moves before something is done about it. Would you like to suddenly log in to realize that none of the templates that you are familiar with work and you now have to search around to find what they are now called? So, maybe CT is not the answer, but an additional choice can be offered to allow that discussion will be made on the template talk page before moves are made. This, by the way, is in line with the effort being organized to work en masse on the templates in general. I might mention that moving/renaming is a change to a template, which has been counseled that such is dependent on a consensus as stated in Senate Hall discussion (see above). However, Tope makes a good point below. This is not necessarily simply an issue of whether to keep or delete a redirect, and I apologize for attempting this issue in this format. This is about the way the move was done and the broad interpretation of the expression, "Be bold!" Not having been faced with such issue before, I was unsure where to take it. So here it is. However, I agree that if this is not the proper forum for this issue to be decided on, then I move to allow this TC be closed in favor of addressing this issue appropriately. I will retry addressing this issue correctly. Thanks. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 22:00, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
  • Whoa!! Hang on here folks. You have all been effusively congratulating Thunderforge for being bold, and it may be that he is a victim of a misunderstanding and that things are not what they seem and he is on the up-and-up. However, due to Trip's comments in the voting track, it has been stated that what was said by Thunderforge was not true, that he never got a consensus on IRC to move the template. Are we now still okay with this? I am all for moving templates when they need it and if they are done with the community in agreement, but this whole issue has been about resetting this redirect so that the process could be done properly and without the hand-wavy, dark-side, IRC claim of consensus. I accepted that Thunderforge used IRC to get a decision—and I assumed in good faith that he was telling the truth—quoted from him below. However, Trip is now stating (also quoted below) that this is not the truth. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 18:23, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory statements regarding consensus to move template and change {{GG}} into a redirect

There seems to be a conflict, here. While Tf may be telling the truth, how do we know? Trip seems to be stating the Tf is not, but could Trip be mistaken? This is the reason why this redirect is wrong, needs to be deleted, and the template restored to its former state. If we accept this redirect, then we are accepting that anyone can claim a consensus made on IRC that not just anyone one can check an edit history to prove. Do you like GG as the spelled out Galaxy Guide name? Fine. Delete the redirect and lets move it the right way with a short discussion on the Talk page. If we are to believe Trip (who is a strong supporter of Thunderforge, by the way), then we have to believe that Thunderforge lied when claiming he had IRC consensus before moving the template. Is it truly a lie? That's the problem: how can we know? We have the word of two different persons who each contradict the other in the statements they made. That is why the template move should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. The confusion here isn't that GG is obscure, it's that little light can be shed on what authority has been given to Tf to begin a project to start going through templates and changing them to suit his preferences. Did he ask you if you liked what he had in mind for GG? Before he did it? What if you didn't like? That is the point I have been making here. Yes, you say you like it now, but what if you didn't? Would you put up with the rationale he is giving for why he wants to move it anyway? —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 09:21, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Voting

Delete Redirect/restore template (let Consensus process govern major changes)

1. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 05:04, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Keep Redirect/leave template "as is" (let IRC determine major changes)

1. It's my belief that a Consensus Track thread is only necessary as the conduct a survey step of the dispute resolution process and is not necessary for a typical rename for a template unlikely to cause controversy. While I perhaps ought to have written something on the talk page of the template, I stand behind my rationale that moving from "GG" to "Galaxy Guides" in order to eliminate an uncommon abbreviation, is a proper use of being bold, especially if the considerations listed under the actions and edits with widespread effects header of that page are taken into account (which they were in this case). -Thunderforge (talk) 09:51, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
2. You're entirely overreacting to Thunderforge's actions, and I for believe that his willingness to be proactive is commendable. His reasoning was perfectly valid and not disruptive, unlike this TC and your accompanying accusations of vandalism and "move-happy"ness. IRC is a perfectly acceptable discussion area, and the template move was not one that had farreaching effects. Your belief that IRC "trumps" the consensus process is incorrect; my recent categories CT began in the IRC, but the scope of the changes led to a Mofference item and then a CT. GG is an undescriptive template name, and you are also incorrect in assuming that the community decided on the recent Fantasy Flight template names. All that the community decided on was the splitting of the templates; you are responsible for the creation and naming of the now awkwardly-titled templates. Also, IRC cannot "trump" a consensus process that has not yet occurred. Cade Calrayn 13:20, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, no. I have not accused vandalism, so please do not accuse libel as that is a personal attack. Move-happy, yes. I did say that. I was ignorant of what was done however, and since you seem to be catching up on my comments elsewhere, it would pay to be thorough and put all of this in context. I retracted those statements when Thunderforge and I discussed the matter civilly, and he informed me that the move was decided on IRC (which I am now being told was not the case, see below). The split FFG templates are only awkwardly titled in your estimation. They are simply named. FFG, SW, name of game: XW, TCG, or EotE. Id est, {{FFGSWXW}}, {{FFGSWTCG}}, {{FFGSWEotE}}. However, they are not the real issue here. GG is in no way awkward. It's been around since 2008, and no one has ever had a problem with it until now. And only because the preference of one person in that he believes that initialized or abbreviated templates need to be spelled out. That is not true. Shorthand is often best when trying to conduct many edits on articles that are using the same template. Spelling a descriptive name out every single time is what is awkward. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 07:47, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

1. Totally agree with Cade. Thunderforge didn't move the template "for the sake of moving it", he moved it to a better name. In addition, he also fixed the links to the template after moving it. I for one believe he should be encouraged to keep up the great work, rather than reverted each time he tries to be bold. Supreme Emperor (talk) 13:35, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
2. While I totally understand Gethralkin's concern here and disagree the use of IRC to gain permission to major changes, if this had been brought to vote before, I would have supported changing the abbreviation to more descriptive name. Hence I see no reason to go back to the old name and then voting on the change of name.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 15:07, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
   • But the point is that this wasn't a major change. I can't think of a major change that has been decided in IRC unless it is the Mofference. Cade Calrayn 15:18, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
     • I was talking generally, Cade. This seems rather minor to me.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 15:34, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
       • The point, Dionne, of this TC is precisely to determine "the use of IRC to gain permission to major changes." If you are opposed to that, then, please, vote opposite above. Thanks. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 17:33, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
         • Indeed, and that is not the purpose of a Trash compactor forum. TC forums do not determine policy. I'm strongly considering closing this forum on the grounds that it's improperly attempting by its stated voting options to create some kind of community precedent that is outside of the function of the TC process. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:44, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
           • If you decide to close this on that basis, I would wholly support that decision. —MJ— _Comlink 17:55, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
             • I'm in agreeance with this as well. TC is for debate on deletion, not CT where we are supposed to discuss policy. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:53, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
         • (Before Tope edit conflicted me!) I thought the point was to vote whether to keep or delete something with a redirect, not about asking advice on IRC?. He probably went to IRC because he figured that it was the fastest (if people are online, they can respond practically immediately, and not have to wait to check a talk page, or a senate hall), and simplest way to get an answer to his question. What do you think would be a faster way then? Trip391 (talk) 17:50, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, IRC is probably ideal for issues not involving changes that will affect or impact many articles that other editors may be working on. Talk page consensus is more suitable, since it allows the community to be made aware of what is gong to affect them and lets them have a voice in the matter. It's more democratic. IRC happens without letting anyone not on IRC know what's happening. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 07:22, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

• The only thing that was "decided" on IRC was whether or not to use a bot to take care of the 19 redirects still set to "GG" after the moving of the page (which is a small number, and most definitely not a "major change"), so Thunderforge fixed them himself. That is all. No "decisions about big major changes", simply what to do with 19 redirects. If someone is supposed to start a CT about whether to use a bot to fix a redirect every time a page is moved, nothing would get done. Trip391 (talk) 07:33, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, really? I was told by Thunderforge that he got approval to move the template in the IRC discussion. Are you saying that is not the case? That he moved the template without consensus and without discussing the move on IRC? —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 07:42, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

• That is not the case, he misworded what he wrote, but seeing as how you commented on this, I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong), you read it before accusing Thunderforge with trying to "restructure the entire template category" (not libel, that is your own words)? Not to call out MJ, but "as long as it makes sense to others, people are unlikely to argue", Thunderforge, or anyone else that would have been in his shoes would think they were able to rename the template. You say nobody in the community would want this, and that Thunderforge did this without community agreement, look at this very TC. Trip391 (talk) 08:03, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, your comment that I accused Thunderforge and your libel comment are off-base and running close to NPA, and now I am beginning to see what JF was warning earlier. Look closely at my statement that you selectively quoted without context, "You did not state that you were interested in restructuring the entire template category." I did not accuse him with that statement. In fact, without your abridged version of my comment, you can see that I specifically said that he did not state he was restructuring. My comment was using an indirect interrogative to point out what was being implied by his actions, with the admonition that such wholesale changes run contrary to what is appropriate here. You are saying that he made the move without IRC consensus, and that the IRC was concerning a bot use after the fact. This is not simply misworded, this is fully contrary to what he told me:

This is very disturbing, and—if what you say is true—this is the very reason why IRC should not be the means to justify moving a template (or article). By the comments on here so far, anyone can say, "I got a consensus on IRC," and be lying and not have to prove it. What do you say now, community? Is this redirect still a good idea to let happen? Do you want this precedent set? You all argued so vehemently how ridiculous I was being, but if Thunderforge has been misleading you as Trip is indicating, then all of your arguments as to how wonderful he is for being bold fall flat with seemingly duplicitous actions and statements (note that all this is implied by what is being said above and in no way is this a personal attack, but an observation on the implications of this situation). —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 08:37, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

1. I almost don't even know where to start with this, this entire episode is so ridiculous. Gethralkin, I completely reject the way in which you have approached these templates. First of all, Consensus track approval is not required for every single change made to this wiki, even major and widespread ones. A CT is required in the case a policy change is being made. We don't need to run off and obtain formal community approval for everything we do. I rue the day we ever turn into such an overbearing bureaucracy. Something as minor as moving the name of a template hardly qualifies as a widespread change that should need community approval. As we know, our edits are covered by WP:BOLD, which encourages users to make changes, even significant ones, within reason. If a user expects there to be opposition to his change, as the page states, it is recommended they engage in a discussion with the community. Such a discussion does not imply securing formal approval through the CT process, Gethralkin; rather, this discussion may take place in many forms, including the Senate Hall, article talk pages, or IRC. If there is general voiced support for the change (note this does not equate to or trump consensus, as this voting option mistakenly suggests), then by all means the user is free to go ahead and implement it. This is exactly what Thunderforge did; to say he somehow acted improperly is false. He also appears to have a perfectly well-intentioned, constructive reason for moving this Galaxy Guide template, not simply for the sake of doing so, as you accuse him of doing. Gethralkin, your entire issue here seems to be not so much with the substance of the template name change, but rather simply by how Thunderforge went about doing it. To that, allow me again to say that one does not need to obtain formal community consensus for everything, much less something so minor as renaming a template, and I submit to you that Thunderforge acted properly. If you do take issue with moving "GG" to "Galaxy Guides" (though I cannot imagine why), then that seems to me to be a completely separate issue worthy of a completely separate discussion outside of this TC thread. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:28, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
2. The template "Galaxy Guides" looks much more descriptive than simply "GG", and will certainly help anyone who may edit it in the future. Even though, I think it was said somewhere, that Galaxy Guides were cancelled, there may still be new information that can be gleaned from them, or could be released in the future; also, there could be a retcon, and some of the information may need to be updated, so preventing confusion is a must! Trip391 (talk) 17:50, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
3. For the same reason I declined the CSD tag, which I will not explain again here. —MJ— _Comlink 17:55, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
4. If we had to have a CT or even a talk page discussion before every single little change, we'd never get a damn thing done. If we have people turn every single little change into a federal case after the fact, we'll still never get a damn thing done. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 18:42, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

• In answer to your comment DC:

• And btw, I agree with you: CT for every little thing would grind progress to a halt, and so CT is not the direction I would want major template changes to go. In any case, I posted the above quotes to show my reasoning in approaching this in the direction I have. It's been said before, and I agree, this isn't the right choice of forum I made, but I'll get it right next time. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 10:41, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

1. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 18:47, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
2. Per Culator. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 19:08, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
3. Frankly, I think this entire thing is childish. But I'll be diplomatic and leave it at that. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 21:26, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
4. Keep redirect. While "GG" followed by a number is readily understood shorthand in EU fandom for that numbered Galaxy Guide (e.g., most fans will recognize "GG6" as Galaxy Guide 6: Tramp Freighters; this has been the semi-official shorthand for Galaxy Guides since A Guide to the Star Wars Universe (Second Edition) first established shorthand codes), I agree that, without a number, "GG" is a little obscure, and spelling it out for the template is probably not a bad idea. Note that my vote should be regarded as non-binding on overall Wookieepedia policy; this vote should not be construed as affirming or rejecting the parenthetical policy comments included in the Keep/Delete headers, which really don't belong in a TC vote anyway. (Though, as an aside, I do think the nominator greatly underestimates how much Wookieepedia business is accomplished through ad-hoc decision-making in IRC.) jSarek (talk) 05:42, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

• I personally have always heard and seen "GG" used (GG1, GG2, GG3, GG4, etc.) as I frequented comic book stores and LGSs, so this is actually a matter of the editor's uninformed personal opinion. Moving the template on that basis ("This abbreviation is not commonly used in the Star Wars community and may result in some confusion.") is therefore incorrect by that assumption. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 07:26, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

1. I support keeping GG as a redirect to Galaxy Guide. They can always be fixed afterward, but in cases of editing, someone may want to use shorthand for citations. As for the IRC addendum to this, this vote is not an assertion that I am one to follow that trend. I would hope major decisions/changes are still discussed in wiki software before enaction. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:59, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Remember, keeping "as is" means opening the door for more arbitrary template moving. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 05:04, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

• I would also like to point out that a reorganization project regarding the templates has already been initiated and that allowing users to go about moving them around willy-nilly is going to run into issues with those trying to reorganize the template formats. Not only that, but even the users working on the reorganization initiative have acknowledged that, in regards to the changes to templates they will be "having a discussion about whether or not such templates should be:

   Merged with another template
   Refined to be more helpful
   Kept as is
   Deleted

So, allowing the {{GG}} template to be redirected means possibly creating conflict with template handling that has already been discussed by the community in a consensus. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 05:15, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

• Just to note, while Thunderforge assures me that his intent is not to restructure all the templates, I still see this as precedent-setting. Without consensus conducted here on this wiki (and, instead, a decision made on IRC), the community is not involved in these changes. If the process to have changes reverted is through this forum, then the initial move needs to be through CT as well. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 08:12, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
  • By the way, and while this discussion is running, I would like to point out that the above reference to Tf's assurances is contrary to his original statements regarding his plans to restructure. In his own words:

—Gethralkin^Hyperwave 18:09, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

• To be clear, the edit summary for moving the template in question was "This abbreviation is not commonly used in the Star Wars community and may result in some confusion. Being bold and moving to a more descriptive name." I do not believe that this is an "arbitrary template move", which is why I voted to keep the change as it is. -Thunderforge (talk) 09:56, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
• Even though a request to withdraw from discussing this controversial topic was issued, continuation of this discussion has been initiated. Therefore, since comments have been made here by my opponent in this discussion, I find the need to answer them. First, "arbitrary" is defined as "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Since there is no system in place, as has been established in this discussion by an admin, and for good reason as he explained in that discussion, this change follows the personal choice of the user that moved the template and not the Wookieepedia community, who did not vote on that move. The second definition of "arbitrary" is "unrestrained and autocratic (power is concentrated in the hands of one person) in the use of authority." In this case, the power to move the template was used by the editor without being restrained from doing so, even though the community had no say in the matter. Both of these definitions fit this action as "arbitrary."
  • Furthermore, since "being bold" has been brought up, the policy on being bold has been brought up as the justification for these changes. However, the same policy cautions, ...but don't be reckless! Now, while this is not necessarily a reckless move, it certainly has guidelines on how such impacting changes should be made. The policy specifically warns against making impacting fundamental changes to articles (or templates) that have long-standing histories that the user wanting to edit them hasn't looked into without first investigating the articles (or, in this case, templates) evolution. "An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily." If the policy has been examined, why be surprised if anger is a response to drastic changes? Why, instead, have not the other facets of the Be Bold policy not been used: If you would like to edit an article on a controversial subject," such as a template, "view the page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is. If you... want to change," such as with a move, "or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references. Then, wait for responses for at least a day: people edit Wookieepedia in their spare time and may not respond immediately. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning." The only thing that was done in this case was the descriptive edit summary. None of the other guidelines were followed. Moving templates in this manner without getting a consensus or feedback from the community is not Being Bold—it is being reckless, and that is what appears to have happened here. Although IRC was mentioned as the medium through which "permission" was granted, this flies in the face of the direction the community wishes to go in these matter, since their voice is not being considered. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 10:37, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
• As a general warning to those that are involved, please be civil. Let's end the finger pointing. If you want to keep the redirect or delete it, then please vote without delving into personal attacks. JangFett ^(Talk) 15:36, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
  • JF, I would not have called "civil language used to describe an editor's actions", "finger pointing," but whatever you want to call it, it is not a personal attack. I try not to be rude, but my writing style is rather blunt and can be misconstrued, and in fact I apologized to a person for a statement I made that was misunderstood as something other than what I was trying to express. I restated that comment to that person in more succinct and less passionate terms when my mistake in being clear was pointed out. As far as your accusations, I have not seen anyone on this page leaving edit summary comments that state such things as "fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap" or "use the Preview button, children!," nor the belittling of contributors because of their language skills or word choice, nor any accusations of dishonesty or immodesty in behavior or character (impropriety), nor the accusing of someone as a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. I have not seen anyone here taunting, or making racial, ethnic, and religious slurs, or using profanity directed at another contributor, nor have I seen any lying (that I can tell), or the defacing user pages, or any giving users derogatory names via Pagemove Trolling, or calling for bans or blocks. If you see any of these items of personal attack or incivility (as completely laid out by the NPA and Civility policies), please point them out. Thank you. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 21:29, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
    • That message was for everyone, Geth, as a general warning. You didn't have to respond to it. JangFett ^(Talk) 23:22, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I wasn't taking offense to something directed at me personally, I was genuinely interested in what prompted your warning. I personally definitely do not want to do something out of line or out of step here. I didn't really see where anyone had, so I was asking if there was something I missed. However, I thank you for being proactive in reminding us to keep a cool head in the discussion. I do appreciate that. Thanks. (and Tope above has indeed pointed out where my comments are straying from civility, so I will temper my remarks better. Thank you Tope.) —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 03:50, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
        • I issued a general warning after reading some of the keep redirect votes. JangFett ^(Talk) 04:56, July 15, 2013 (UTC)