Talk:Rembrandt toothpaste/Archive 1

Ref columns
I agree with this ref column edit, which appears better on my screen, while I understand that it leads to different appearances on different screens. If there were an imperative to move away from the editor-chosen option of 2 columns -- which was the first column option chosen in this article, by the main contributor -- then wikipedia should mandate the alternative format. The Project hasn't chosen to do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As already explained, the "fixed number of columns" format is deprecated in favour of the "fixed column width" format - while the former might appear better on your screen, it does not function at all in mobile view, and the width option works better on most setups. What you chose to use cannot overrule broader project consensus to prefer the width option. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's simply incorrect. It functions perfectly on my iphone in mobile view. Furthermore, you are the only editor in this discussion who has your view. The "ref|2" option works -- the Project has not abandoned it, and there is no bot forcing a change from that format to the one you prefer -- and which the other editors editing this article do not prefer.


 * In addition, as discussed with you before on your talkpage by a number of editors, your edit summaries failed to explain properly the reason for your edits. Even after when you were reverting editors multiple times. On your second revert in short order you wrote: "".  After Sven wrote in his edit summary, in response, "(I'm sorry, but five columns is completely insane in this context. It makes sense when your references are "Smith (2002) p. 23", but not for long-form citations.)", you wrote only "(change width)". On your third revert, against two other editors, in short order.  That failed totally to explain "why." This is precisely the problem that others have discussed with you is a problem with your edit summaries. Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not possible to simply use a bot to change it, because different circumstances would require the use of different widths; however, the use of the current format places the article in a cleanup category to be manually addressed. The project has in fact deprecated that format (as explained in the template documentation to which my edit summary referred), and you preferring it does not override broader project consensus. Your personal commentary is incorrect and has been addressed in the appropriate venue, which is my talkpage, not here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You did not point me to any Project-wide RFC or similar discussion of this.
 * And the discussion on this page is clearly not reflecting support of your view ... yet, despite that, you reverted 2 editors 3 times in 7 hours, with edit summaries that failed to properly explain why you were reverting them.
 * And I still don't understand your failure to use your edit summary -- on your third revert, in short order -- to explain Why you were reverting. All you did was write "change width."  Yes ... we could see that.  Why do you refuse, after many editors have requested it, especially on clearly contentious edits, to explain in your edit summary why you are making the edit.  "Change width" was a rather unhelpful summary in this regard.
 * And my commentary as to how this is a pattern is relevant, as this is the last instance of the pattern, and the pattern informs interpretation of this event. Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "You did not point me to any Project-wide RFC or similar discussion of this." I pointed you to the template documentation describing community consensus on use of the template, and you can follow links to find previous discussions.
 * "And the discussion on this page is clearly not reflecting support of your view" - as the discussion on this page currently includes only you and I, support is equally split between my view and yours
 * "you reverted 2 editors 3 times in 7 hours, with edit summaries that failed to properly explain why you were reverting them" - false
 * "my commentary as to how this is a pattern is relevant..." - not here it's not, as this page is to discuss this article, not general patterns.
 * Now, did you actually have a point to make relevant to the formatting that should be used in this article? As you have previously pointed out, that you like another format is insufficient reason to prefer it; this is particularly true when broader discussions have deprecated that format. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)