User talk:WildWildWood

Many thanks
For reversing the edits by Vaze50. There were so many I could not face doing it. --Greenmaven (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I refer you both to my comments below. Vaze50 (talk), 12:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Numbered changes
Consensus should be sought for making such wholesale and unnecessary changes to those pages as you did. Ignoring the comment from the user above, what attempts at consensus have you made for this messy and totally unnecessary change? There is no justification or need to number every single thing - it is not useful for reference; lists are provided within the articles themselves. It makes no sense to number every single thing. Can you demonstrate consensus for these changes? Vaze50 (talk), 12:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

To expand on the above, there are several objections I have to this change and the way this was done.

Firstly - no consensus was sought. This was a major change made wholesale and with no attempt to seek a consensus for it. At least if there had been a consensus in favour of the change initially there could have been a change before a conversation, but there was none made whatsoever.

Secondly - there are opinions on both sides. Clearly from the comment above there are people who support the idea of a change, but many of my edits removing the numbers received "thanks" from other users, indicating a big difference of opinion. It seems to me the only way to resolve this will be by a discussion on a relevant page, not by an edit war. As you know, the form is for the status quo to be maintained in an article where there is dispute. The best way forward, it seems to me, is to have a discussion and debate on a relevant page - while keeping the pages unchanged for now, as is the typical way - before coming to a view. If the consensus is in favour of the change then it should be made as soon as possible.

Thirdly - the change itself. It is completely inconsistent. Why are some ministerial positions numbered and many others not? Why are some deputy leaderships numbered and others aren't? Why is it essential information to know that somebody was the 36th leader of a party, but not to include a number for every other job they've held? What exactly is gained from knowing someone is the 36th leader of a party when that information exists elsewhere? These are questions that should be answered in a debate on a relevant page - as you are seeking the change, I believe the burden of instigating this should lie with yourself.

I hope that this can be discussed in the proper format. If there is a consensus view formed in favour of a change to include numbers, then I will of course accept that - although I would make the point that if any change like that was accepted, it would have to be applied consistently across all ministerial positions rather than just some. I look forward to your reply. Vaze50 (talk), 12:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)