Talk:Texpark site

Infobox
The continued reversion of the replacement of Infobox urban feature with Infobox urban development project is asinine.


 * This article is about a development project. It tells us that the site was ""sold to United Gulf Developments, who have formally put forward two development proposals for the site."
 * The word "Development" appears 22 times in the article; including in the heading "Development proposals".
 * The recent TfD on closed with the note "there is consensus that this is a miscellaneous infobox. As such, it's appropriate to replace it with more relevant infoboxes as necessary"
 * The infobox on this article was discussed during that TfD. The objection to using was stated as "There is currently no development project proposed for the site whatsoever, and there hasn't been since 201" My reply ether was "Henry VIII is no longer King of England; yet we still use Infobox royalty on our article about him.", to which there was no response.
 * The statement in the "urban feature" infobox, Gravel, brush, which comprises the only additional content offered by it here, is unsupported by a citation in the body of the article; and is trivia.

I note that both Alaney2k & Citobun who have reverted that replacement were in opposition at that TfD. WP:POINT applies.

from the TfD. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you want to edit war over this. Frustration you are not getting your way? Alaney2k (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Pigsonthewing, please stop edit warring over this. The subject of the article is a vacant lot. It is not about a development proposal, no matter how many instances of the word "development" you counted. The reference to Henry VIII is not apt...Henry VIII is royalty. The Texpark site is a vacant lot, not a development proposal. POINT applies to you also. Citobun (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's always amusing to be told to stop edit warring by someone who is edit warring. Your claims are bogus, as explained above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can find a development proposal entitled "Texpark site", do post a link for us. Until then, please move on. Citobun (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No need; they're already listed in Texpark site. The clue's in the sub-heading. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read the article. You will notice that the first couple sections define the subject of the article (a vacant lot), cover its history, etc – the history of the lot, not the history of any particular development proposal. You will notice that none of the development proposals are named "Texpark site", the title of this article and hence the subject of this article. You will notice that the final section, which covers the current status of the vacant lot, explains clearly that there is no development proposal ongoing.


 * You are being deliberately obtuse and normally I wouldn't bother responding to this kind of attitude, but you complained that I haven't replied to your Henry VIII analogy so here you go. The subject of this article is broader than any single development proposal made for the site. The fact that several distinct proposals have been made over the years also complicates the use of the Infobox urban development project, because numerous proposals have been made and none of them are current. Infobox urban development project would be appropriate if the subject of this article were the "Twisted Sisters". Infobox urban development project would be appropriate if the subject of the article were "Skye Halifax". But the article subject is the Texpark site – a vacant lot – not a development project. Citobun (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)