Template talk:Infobox gunpowder plotter

Name
After making a few modifications, I recently moved this template to "Infobox gunpowder plotter". I have been reverted with the edit summary of "restore old name". Why? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And my changes have been reverted with an edit summary of "no consensus for these wide-ranging changes", which is, of course, no good reason to revert. The changes should be restored. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The infobox is part of a Featured Topic, all articles in that topic share the same style. You decided, all on your own, to change that.  That's why I reverted you. Parrot of Doom 14:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:DNRNC applies. Further, I'm not aware of any policy or MoS requirement for articles in featured topics to share the same style, differing from the style used in the rest of Wikipedia, for example by putting meta-topic over the article subject's name in an infobox (consider what would happen if an article was in two FTs, each with their own titles, and with differing styles).

That aside, you reverted all my edits as one, regardless of what they were. For instance, I reduced the number of colours used in this template, and did so by removing the colour combination which fails WCAG accessibility tests, making it hard to read by people with various visual impairments. I'm not clear why you wouldn't support that.

I removed in-line styling (padding and spacing), which overrode Infobox's defaults. I'm not clear why you found it necessary to restore them; if there is a problem with those defaults, surely that template's talk page is the pace to raise the matter?

I removed unused and undocumented native name parameters. Why did you find it necessary to restore them?

I removed a ink to List of causes of death by rate, which seemed to breach WP:OVERLINK. Why is that required?

I also made this infobox one for people, emitting biographical metadata, as is standard across all our other biographical infoboxes. Why did you undo that?

I added a separate parameter for the subject's honorific prefix ("Sir"), so that the metadata was emitted with the correct level of granularity. That made no visual change, so I'm not clear why you found it objectionable.

Rather than trying to use the same infobox for several people and a single event, I then used a different infobox for the event, so that it emitted event-related metadata.

As reverted, this infobox now has a bunch of parameters used in only one article.

Oh, and somewhere along the way, you and another editor separated the template and its history, thereby hiding its development from other editors, and denying attribution to the editors who made it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure this is fascinating to some people but the fact is there was nothing wrong with the infobox the way it was, so I'd rather it was left alone. Parrot of Doom 14:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised and disappointed by your apparent refusal to engage in discussion; but in that case lets take one issue: I reduced the number of colours used in this template, and did so by removing the colour combination which fails WCAG accessibility tests, making it hard to read by people with various visual impairments. Why wouldn't you support that? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's rather dishonest of you to claim that the use of colour in this template contravenes WCAG, don't you think? A bit like saying "blind people can't see colours, so we shouldn't use colours". Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No; and no it isn't, but thanks for commenting. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)