User talk:Agriculture/archive 2

 Please add new comments in new sections. Thanks in advance. Agriculture  Talk archives: archive1

One thing
Would you mind voting here?

Illinois Template
As a rule do not make major edits like that which are reflected on many many pages without first going to discussion. You're erasing a very LARGE amount of work and information added by others. The consensus has been to leave it as it is, and this sort of template exists for the other states as well. Agriculture 23:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In regards to your comment about the Illinois Template, I looked and did not see any discussion about the template. The reason I changed it was because it was unnecessarly large and honestly looks fairly ugly on pages, especially small ones. This is not only my opinion, but was brought up on the peer review that I started for the Chicago article. As I am in the process of nominating Chicago as a featured article, I am not comfortable putting this template in the article, nor are amny of the other Chicago editors; if a compromise cannot be reached, the consensus between the members of WikiProject Chicago is to exclude the template. I do not see why the individule counties should be listed when there is a page listing the counties. If you say there is discussion supporting this, I would like to see it as I was unable to find any. Regardless of this, I still intend to add the History, Government, Economy and People and Culture links as I believe that these articles should be advertised. They were not in existence before today, so naturally any pre-formed consensus were not apply to them. Please advise on how you would like to address this.

--Gpyoung talk 01:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is your responsibility to start such a discussion as the current Illinois template is based on the consensus of the community and the result of quite a bit of work. To be quite frank Wikipedia does not care if you personally are not comfortable with an article bearing this template, or if you do not like the template.  It is concerned with what the consensus as a whole has created.  There is currently a standard to list counties and other such areas on state Templates, as evidence I present the following (apologies for the length but I think it makes the point very clear).


 * Template:Alabama
 * Template:Alaska
 * Template:Arizona
 * Template:Arkansas
 * Template:California
 * Template:Colorado
 * Template:Connecticut
 * Template:Delaware
 * Template:Florida
 * Template:Georgia
 * Template:Hawaii
 * Template:Idaho
 * Template:Indiana
 * Template:Iowa
 * Template:Kansas
 * Template:Kentucky
 * Template:Louisiana
 * Template:Maine
 * Template:Maryland
 * Template:Massachusetts
 * Template:Michigan
 * Template:Minnesota
 * Template:Mississippi
 * Template:Missouri
 * Template:Montana
 * Template:Nebraska
 * Template:Nevada
 * Template:New Hampshire
 * Template:New Jersey
 * Template:New Mexico
 * Template:New York
 * Template:North Carolina
 * Template:North Dakota
 * Template:Ohio
 * Template:Oklahoma
 * Template:Oregon
 * Template:Pennsylvania
 * Template:Rhode Island
 * Template:South Carolina
 * Template:South Dakota
 * Template:Tennessee
 * Template:Texas
 * Template:Utah
 * Template:Vermont
 * Template:Virginia
 * Template:Washington
 * Template:West Virginia
 * Template:Wisconsin
 * Template:Wyoming
 * As such, I suggest you think about what it means that every single state in the union follows this pattern. Adding links to the history and other sections should be in the body of the Illinois article as such "Please see the article Illinois (history) for more information as is done in other states. Agriculture 01:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, there was discussion about these template. This occured on the peer review I mentioned before as well as on numerous talk pages. A template or format being prevelent in other acticles does not mean that it is set in stone. Im sorry, I would think that since there was no discussion to the contrary, and since Wikipedia is all about making bold changes, my change is no different then any of the other ones made on the template, it was an attempt at an improvment. I can hardly believe that you had the unmidigated gall to post the comments you did in the edit summary, calling that vandalism shows that your attitude is against ANY changes. Your comment is extememly offensive and boarders on a personal attack. I do not want this to become an edit war, but you do not seem to have a constructive attitude. If you continue to revert my work, I do intent to start a new discussion, or rather move the discussion that took place before and supported this change to the templates talk page. If you would like to present your opinion, please do but please stop attacking me. Gpyoung talk 02:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * A discussion on some peer review unlisted and thus undiscussed by the editors of the main article in question does not accurately reflect the opinions of all concerned parties. You are correct a template or formate being prevalent does not mean it is set in stone, but when such is the rule with no exceptions it should be discussed before such a broad sweeping change is made to all pages which use the template.  Many articles in fact rely on the Illinois template as it is.
 * Wikipedia is about making bold changes, but not ones which damage existing work. Perhaps the changes you wish to suggest have some merit, perhaps not.  But the correct way to go about doing this is not by just deciding to change it, but to fully discuss the issue.
 * As for my having "unmidigated (sic) gall" to post that what you did was vandalism, it wasn't gall I assure you, but given that you essentially blanked the template without discussing it on the talk page at all, I assumed it was vandalism as you were an unknown editor coming out of the blue and destroying the work of others. I cannot divine your true intent, which is why I postfixed the vandalism comment with my opinion on what you should do if you were seriously attempting a positive edit.  I didn't know you, but I did know you blanked the template.  I worked with what info I had.  The comment was neither offensive or a personal attack.  I suggest you cool off a bit and approach the situation from my shoes and look at how truly destructive your edit was, especially after the discussion which had occured prior to your blanking which over the years has shaped the Illinois template.
 * I don't wish this to be an edit war either, however I suggest you revisit your opinion that I don't seem to have a "constructive attitude". Read the discussion of the template page, you will find there have been several discussions there between myself and other editors.  I have not attacked you at all yet, simply given you evidence that your edit was inappropriate.  Your only defense has been "I think it should be different".  My evidence has been "Wikipedia seems to disagree".  I whole heartedly support a discussion on the talk page including all users on the subject if you wish, but I will revert any destructive edits which you make to the template before such a discussion takes place in the name of preserving the template for the many, MANY articles which utilize it.  Any constructive edits which you make (i.e. which add information to the template and do not remove from it) I will discuss on the talk page before changing myself.  I think this is a perfectly reasonable compromise and await your opinion. Agriculture 02:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My evidence has certainly not been that I "like it that way" and yours has not been "wikipedia likes it that way". You have shown me nothing but that you want to "keep it the way it was". You have shown no discussion to show that "Wikipedia" likes it at all. Im sorry if you consider it destructive, but once again that is your opinion and I do not believe many people see reformatting as destructive, and if you do I think you have to reevaluate. Please look into what vandalism actually is before you accuse someone. Juse beuase you disagree with me, doesnt make it vandalsim, that is what offends me. Im sorry that this has been uglier then was intended, I do not wish this to continue, and I have started an actual discussion on the talk page with all intents of civility, I hope you will follow suit.

--Gpyoung talk 03:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * My evidence has been 49 examples of prior art indicating that a large majority of Wikipedians have established a standard for templates of the 50 states. This is not a case of my opinion, but of the majority opinion.  That much should be readily obvious.  As far as destructive, your edit most certainly was.  It removed information, it did not as you claim reformate.  As far as Vandalism, yes.  Blanking a page partially or wholely is listed under the definition of Vandalism.  I apologize if I offended you, after talking with you I see Vandalism was not your intent, and you seem to just be a Wikipedian with concerns about Illinois.  I am as well.  I agree this began uglier than it should have and suggest we work together on the talk page and various projects to push our mutual goal, making all articles on our great state better. Agriculture 03:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This was obviously not an incident of blanking, it was reformatting, content was not removed maliciously or for the sake of vandalism, it was removed for the purpose of changing the format for, in my opinion, the better. This is no different then any other major edit or change, except that you disagree with it, I understand your object and respect it, but dont call it vandalism. As for where to go from here, I think there is a possibillity of compromise. Is there any way we can put this behind us and and try to come up with a version that both includes the individule links and is more compact, and possibly includes the other article (government ect.)
 * I look forward to working with you on this if possible,

--Gpyoung talk 03:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It was unclear from your intial edit what the intent was. As I said, it appeared to be vandalism, but after you have explained your position I can see that was not the intent.  The difference is not my disagreement, but the deletion of well established content.  I agree there is a possibility of compromise, though you still have not told me why the current template is so offensive.  On of the goals of Wikipedia is to provide useful content, so far the template and it's generic format have proved useful for many, many users of all the states.  Perhaps there is a way to better format it, but until I understand what you don't like, it's hard to offer suggestions.  I agree, lets put the initial misunderstanding behind us and work towards something common with the rest of the community. Agriculture 03:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The reason I did not like the template was because it was too large. I have been playing with the idea of condensing it while still leaving in the individule links, please see User:Gpyoung/Illinois for my work on this. I know its not much smaller, but it cuts down the wasted space, making it aat least a little smaller. Tell me what you think.

--Gpyoung talk 03:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)