Template talk:Star Trek fan productions

Moved discussion
Fan productions have fallen in to distinct categories, reflected in the way they approach their work, the cross-overs they collaborate on, the era they are set in, et cetera. Categorising them on this template is therefore the more useful approach. An alphabetical listing is confused. 134.219.174.41 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Very much agreed ... senseless back-and-forth should also stop. Do not attempt to override the status quo with the alphabetical order unless you have some backup. Categorical order is precedented ... it's useful and helps user see exactly what they want without wading through articles. Rj.browne 12:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it highly unlikely that a new editor with almost no edit history just happened to come across a *template* discussion with exactly the same views as the prior anonymous editor. The "status quo", as you put it, was overridden by you "two", since the alphabetical listing was in place long before you "two" came along. However, I find that dividing them up by perceived eras is just as arbitrary - and goes against precedent, as a similar listing for Star Wars fanfilms also lists the fan projects alphabetically. TheRealFennShysa 14:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who that other person is (that is not my IP address, FYI) and I don't appreciate the unfounded accusation. You're in a minority here, I'm afraid. Wait for some other people to turn up and put your opinion in the majority before you edit again. The categorical listing is the current status quo as it has stood for a number of months with no-one else objecting to what was an apparent improvement all those months ago. I agree with whoever made that improvement and whoever started this talk page. That is what stands and constantly editing this page with something that, as it seems at the moment, only you want, is not really in the wiki community spirit, is it? I realise it's upsetting to be convinced one is right but be the only one who sees that you are (believe me, I've been there), but it doesn't give you any rights. Please leave it be. Rj.browne 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the "status quo", as you put it, is for the alphabetical listing. Had you checked the edit history for the template, you would have noticed that the arbitrary categorization only started when someone editing from 86.136.186.99 changed the listing in August - barely one month later (not a number of months, as you claim) *I* reverted it back to the preferred listing. Furthermore, as TheRealFennShysa did, I also find it curious that you, an editor with hardly any apparent edit history to speak of, just happened to stumble across an edit disagreement over a template - hardly the proving grounds for one with such a small history of edits. Added to that the fact that you appear to be editing from 86.154.101.24 (based on your revert before you signed in), which is a British Telecom IP address in Hertfordshire, aka North London, which just happens to be right about where Royal Holloway and Bedford New College is (where the 134.219.174.116 and similar IPs resolve to)...
 * So let's see... multiple IPs from England with very small edit counts all just happening to find this obscure discussion - Hello! I think the idea that you may be the same person just got a lot closer to verified. Protest all you want, but you don't get to make policy around here, and you don't get to lay down the law that we can't edit your preferred version of the page - that's not the way things work around here. The consensus on templates like this has been for alphabetical listings, the preferred version for the longest time has been for alphabetical listings, and that's what I'm reverting it back to. Thank you for playing. MikeWazowski 02:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that it's two registered versus one + a guest, I'm happy to back down until anyone else wants to "play" ... But just for your information, I have NO idea how ISPs are laid out or whatever, so you can lord your knowledge over me all you want, but I am NOT whoever started this. I'm not even close to either of the places you're talking about, I'm guessing that's just my ISP. So have your alphabet if you want it, but you're getting it because you are legitimately in the majority, not because of any of your other arguments. If anyone else comes on this side of the argument, you will be in the minority again, and you won't have the right to revert anything just because of some wild double-identity theory you two are dreaming up. And also, just to help you do some counting here, 5 August was when the categorical order was instigated and you reverted it October 7th. That's two months mate. Thanks for playing the counting game. Rj.browne 08:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)