Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Hindi films of 2011

Contested changes
I do not agree with changes to this template. The current formation is designed to be eye-catching to reduce ongoing and repeated copyright problem. Editnotice is not mandatory, and the template in use serves its purpose just fine here. There is no consensus restricting the use of divbox in any space but article space at this point. If you don't want it used in edit notices, perhaps reopening Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_34 would be a good idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you had bothered to look at editnotice you would have seen that it is adaptable enough to accommodate the styling presently used by this template (which is pointless IMO, but not a deal-breaker when it comes to compromise). That you have repeatedly opposed this (and wasted a significant amount of my free time) based on nothing but personal aesthetic opinion and filibustered good faith attempts to improve this template has significantly damaged my personal opinion of you. Anyway, the compromise solution (which uses editnotice but with the present styling) is in the new sandbox. I won't be restoring it myself, but should some other innocent editor pass this way (as opposed to, say, chasing me around by my contributions history to needlessly edit war with me) and feel the need to help out with standardising the way Wikipedia marks up these notices then the work is done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Funny that you didn't take the time to adapt it to accommodate the styling presently used by this template, given that you know that stripping that styling was objected to a matter of weeks ago. If you want to deprecate the use of divbox in any area, establish consensus, and I won't disagree with you any further. In spite of the fact that it was you who embarked on a campaign to change status quo during our last discussion, I'm the one who actually attempted to involve the community. But I'm perfectly happy to stop wasting your time if you stop in your own behavior. I'm not the one implementing controversial changes without the courtesy of discussion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the need to pre-emptively reduce the effectiveness of my work by keeping the styles unless forced to by yet more pointless filibustering. And this isn't a "controversial" change at all, no matter how it's wikilawyered: just one that an editor has vetoed and then fought back on based on a flimsy piece of process (the village pump discussion revealed nothing so much as precisely how little most of the community cares about this issue). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What you consider "pointless filibustering", I consider WP:CONSENSUS process. We do have to talk through our differences. By definition, actions under debate would seem to be controversial. If you feel that the village pump is insufficient process, I'm happy to follow you to whatever WP:DR forum you think more appropriate. Alternatively, if you want to implement a compromise that does not remove the styling - that element to which you know I have specifically objected removing and which you have offered no reason to remove except (how did you put it?) "personal aesthetic opinion" - then I will certainly have no objections to that. OTOH, I have no problem with the edit notice as it is, as divbox is not disallowed in edit notices, so I don't see any point in implementing a different template to achieve the exact same visual effect. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)