User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 7

Bidirectional
I'll not revert your current edits at the Firefly actors' pages; I'm sad that the state of discussion of the topic is so scattered and in my opinion inconclusive, but I can't muster the energy required to try to gather and link all that discussion into something centralized and coherent. It deserves the attention, but I just can't give it. The consequence for you is that you'll continue to get startled reactions from editors who have no sensible, well-discussed central document to read, which will really explain the fractious and bumpy history of what you're doing. --Lexein (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah - maybe there should be something at the project documenting the historical consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Return (2011 film)
There's being pointy, and that's what you're doing, reverting while discussion is ongoing. That's just really shitty behavior, and it's a bad example for new editors. What is your goddamn deal? Why can't you ever just let discussion take its few-days course? --Lexein (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus and guidelines are against exec producers in infoboxes. There is no field for exec producers.  We do not include them.  They should only be included if the guideline is changed.  The claim that the exec producers are notable is irrelevant, as there is no place for them in the infobox.  Even Spielberg doesn't get infobox inclusion.  That there is an ongoing discussion (which is not in favour of inclusion) does not mean they should stay.  We go with the current guideline.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Journey Template
Please see the Journey Template Talk page. Dave Golland (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Bodily Fluids Triptych
I'm just wondering if Christopher Nolan is allowed a template as such, despite me including much of what Nolan has in terms of format, then why isn't McQueen allowed one? --Bartallen2 (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * McQueen has a template at Template:Steve McQueen (director). --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As so does, Nolan; the only differentiation is that someone recently placed McQueen's art work in the film's he directed, thus the change at hand. Plus, the template I created is entirely different due to the fact it's highlighting a trilogy of films, similar to Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy template. --Bartallen2 (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * All artworks of McQueen, whether film or otherwise, can (and should) be grouped together in a single template. The "trilogy" of which you speak is not notable in itself, as it was coined last week in a single Guardian article.  And the topics you wish to introduce are too broad for a single template. Sex, love, Provisional IRA, etc.  And it falls foul of many other navbox guidelines, as I've explained on the talk page.  But if you have any further questions, please ask.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Conflict
I'm not here to attack you, and I agree with your reasoning on the template, but I have observed how you operate beyond our own interactions and I do find you to often be meddlesome and quite confrontational in your approach to other editors who don't agree with you. I think there are certainly ways you could go about editing which reduce this sort of thing happening. In this case though it definitely seems like Ken is being unnecessarily heated in his response. There aren't many editors on wikipedia I don't get along with to some reasonable sort of understanding, but admittedly at present you're one of the ones I can't say I find reasonable, which is a shame as I believe you also have interests in cinema and are working here in good faith.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And I'm not being sarcastic - maybe I need to have it pointed out to me, now we're not in the heat of the moment with something.  Maybe I have been letting some of these confrontations get to me sometimes, or just had a bad day.  Maybe I've seen the same things over again and lose patience once in a while.  Maybe it's an unintentional tone.  Please let me know next time you see me do something out of order, and I'll try to rein it in a bit...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, wikipedia can be very stressful at times, I agree. Arsenic and Old Lace would be worth expanding sometime. Bringing up Baby though I think I can get up to GA status first when I have more time. Above all I think most of us are here for the same reason. Beyond My Ken has actually done quite a bit of good work on films, even if the way he's responding indicates otherwise. It's a pity that more energy doesn't actually go into expanding it, it seems like 50% of disputes these days are over nav or infoboxes...♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde-related
I heard that you were the one who moved the page detailing the full bio of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde back to Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Originally, I had given that character a separate page to detail more about him, his different portrayals, and other appearances (notably his appearance in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comics and film) just like someone did with the Invisible Man. I'm just letting you know that. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:34, January 28 2014 (UTC)
 * . Sorry for the delay. The main issue here is that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an unsuitable title for the article, as the source material is most likely the target for anyone making this search. It also is the title of many films, so there is a disambiguation page. There is also an article at Henry Jekyll, which should probably have been improved. I've moved it to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (character) and corrected the redirect. There may be a more suitable title for the article than that. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are right about the renaming. Perhaps you can correct the links on the story page and the template as well. I will handle the links to "their" other appearances like in Mad Monster Party?, Mad Mad Mad Monsters, Gravedale High, Wake, Rattle, and Roll, Monster High, and some of the Looney Tunes pages that feature their version of the "characters". As I mentioned, I had created his page since the other contributors created pages for Griffin the Invisible Man, King Kong, Godzilla (alongside his different opponents), the Gill-man, and characters from the earlier Frankenstein films. Rtkat3 (talk) 11:02, January 31 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I already did that earlier on. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My apology...
...for my incivility towards you. BMK (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Unwanted templates
I really recommend not restoring stuff because it exists that you don't even like yourself, and argue against, but still refer to WP:IDONTLIKEIT as the problem. Consensus-by-bureaucracy doesn't actually achieve anything.

Peter Isotalo 14:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation linked
Do you have a policy or guideline for that? Standard practice as I've seen in every template is to leave the disambiguation unlinked. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it is mentioned in a guideline - just what I can remember of other editors' preferences in various discussions. I don't think there is a "standard practice" either way really, but navboxes are so badly abused and misused anyway, that's not usually a good judge.  Maybe it's down to personal preference, but in Firefly I can see no need to break the disambiguation out - It's tidy and clear as it is, and the whole "phrase" is linked.  Unlinking the disambiguation makes it that little bit more scruffy.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Transport from Paradise
Hello. I see you moved Transport from Paradise from its Czech-language title. Have you seen any references which use this name? The only references on the article, both in English (IMDB and Locarno), do not refer to the film as "Transport from Paradise". Thanks, C679 08:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's being released on DVD in the UK under this title, but here it is at TCM and Mubi. I'm really looking forward to seeing it!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will add those to the article. Enjoy the film! C679 08:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Template
You are going to need to point me to this consensus on the matter. In any case, making the box harder to read (which it is, regardless of being in year order) for the sake of two whole lines seems open to debate in this isolated case. There may be a third approach, that combines readability with size worth looking into. However as it stands the template is now a mess to look at, which seems an important thing to consider before changing templates. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Personally, I think the "mess" is caused when the navbox is unnecessarily cluttered.  Adding decade splits (a split which is arbitrary anyway) forces the navbox to be larger than necessary, and doesn't allow for greater readability.  If a navbox becomes too large, a split may be justified (say a 50/50 split, or something less arbitrary), but I don't think that applies here as there aren't that many articles linked.  No specific discussion for this template, but there's a similar one for a parallel problem with film directors here, and a discussion about awards templates here, although that was when users had taken the bold decision to split them down into separate templates per decade or other arbitrary year groupings.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The box wasn't cluttered before because it was organised, but is looks cluttered now. I don't think decade splits are arbitrary, it's a pretty consistent way of dividing things up in all ways of life, not just wikipedia. It's a fairly logical thing to do. That said i didn't have any input into making the box and we can agree to disagree on that. Now, I can agree the 3 entries that didn't fit into the bigger groupings are an anomaly, but thats a different issue that is easily fixed by tweaking the groupings. You used the term "general consensus" in your edit summary, well I would suggest that it isn't. Rather that there is enough evidence that some people have established a consensus on their individual templates.


 * Now, I don't see the need for this to escalate into a big issue, because let's be honest it isn't. On the other hand we both seem to have a personal preference here. In the grand scheme of wikipedia this is a low importance template, limited entirely to articles under the WP:Anime banner. I've only skimmed your contrib summary but would I be correct in assuming this is an area that you don't have much interest in? If not, then may I suggest that I will edit the template to reduce the space used by the template by "merging" the 3 entries that stick out thus achieving your desire of a smaller template, but without affecting the readability of the box as a whole. Otherwise if you still insist your way is better than it will be necessary to seek consensus. I really don't think the latter option is necessary though, the former would seem a sensible middle ground.Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've reverted to one split - up to 2000 and 2001 onwards. Maybe it'll be time for a third section in 10 years or so!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

John Wayne filmography
Hi Rob. Agree with you on the filmography layout and I've reverted back to your version per WP:FILMOGRAPHY. And you may be interested in this.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I do wonder about the studio and director columns too, and maybe the notes column show a little bit too much information (per recent discussions on the matter), but I think everyone will agree that this is a massive improvement than what was there before. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please try to avoid edit warring, as for example at Template:Sheep breeds of Italy. You should probably re-read WP:BRD. If there's any part of it you can't fully understand, do please feel free to ask. The gist is that if you make an edit and it is reverted, you discuss rather than making the same edit again. You should know that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See the comment that I had already left on your talk page regarding the guidelines for and appropriate functions of navboxes and we'll discuss it there. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Ghostbusters Template
Another content dispute on the GB template. Please address your revision on here: Template_talk:Ghostbusters. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 14:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Incivility
This is the second time in the last few days that you have disparaged the work of another editor. You don't hurt my feelings by describing my work as a "carbuncle" because I don't have any, and I've always liked carbuncles anyway. But it is not acceptable for you to denigrate the work of, a particularly helpful visitor to this wiki and an absolute powerhouse in her own, with your petty insults; it must have been obvious to you that she had posted on that very page. I suggest that you strike through your unacceptable remark, and follow it with an apology. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it is an eyesore, and would not be deemed acceptable here on the English Wikipedia. It might be acceptable over at French Wikipedia, but to me it looks horrible and unprofessional, and goes completely against our guidelines (which you seem to disregard anyway).  I'm not sure when stating that kind of opinion started being classed as incivil.  I was commenting on the template, not the user.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Rob, navbox CLEARLY allows images and colors to be added; they are optional parameters. Were they unacceptable, they would not be in the template, and the template has examples of their use.  You really need to drop this stick.   Montanabw (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because things are technically possible, doesn't mean they should be used. If consensus is against them, then the community has not condoned their usage.  You need to stop clutching at straws.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no "the community." I see you and a couple of like-minded people who are engaging in a project that will affect thousands of navboxes.   Montanabw (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (Talk page stalking): Manual of Style/Text formatting and WP:COLOR are very relevant to this discussion. There does seem to be this thing called consensus already established on the issue. --Izno (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Tarzan (2016 film)
I hand this issue to you per my unblock restrictions. The film is not yet filming, and has not enough information to pass WP:CRYSTAL. Rusted AutoParts 18:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jurassic World, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.  g s k  17:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jurassic World
With User:GSK reverting you, that's two people disagreeing with the redirect.t Rather than both of us risking edit warring, let's drop the stick and talk on the talk page. Rusted AutoParts 18:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't revert back, but you did breach 3RR. Rusted AutoParts 19:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  g s k  20:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roger Corman filmography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin O'Neill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...
As one of the previous contributors to Infobox film or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:University of Westminster
could use some improvements per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Michael Powell‎ & Template:Powell and Pressburger‎
Isn't this the sort of thing that should be discussed in the talk pages for the templates rather than just steaming in? You now have (or did before I undid your edits) lots of pages that include the same template -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the point though - duplication of a template twice on the same article is not a reason not to merge the templates - that's just a matter of housekeeping. Per WP:T3 one of them needs to go.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't objecting to the idea of merging them. I was objecting to the way you did it and the mess it left behind with many articles having two copies of the same template. -- SteveCrook (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Divergent (series)
Hi, I wanted to know why you changed the format completely of this template because Harry Potter and Twilight Saga have the templates with similar format. Is there any problem with the previous format because The link WP:EXISTING does not clarify your reasons of changing the format.--Jockzain (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because there were a lot of duplicate links to the same articles, so the formatting didn't make sense without the existence of multiple films. Not all film/book series navboxes need to follow the format for the examples you give above.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

By works templates
As much as we disagree about templating, I do concede that you are a lot more familiar with the guidelines and such. Which guidelines are relevant in considering using a film adaptation section in Ernest Hemingway at Ernest Hemingway, rather than the collapsed bundle above. Also, what is proper terminology for the collapsed bundle. Also, what is optimal formatting for these types of bundles?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony, I think we probably agree more than we disagree, but we only ever need to talk when it's the latter! I think the "wrapper"(is that what you call it?) option you demonstrate above would have been best at Ernest Hemingway, but that seems to have failed consensus, thus presenting us with these WP:BIDIRECTIONAL problems.  I can see their objection to the "candystriping" mind you, so removing the authors' names from these kind of navboxes does kind of solve the problem.  The articles are more directly related to the work than to the author in most cases.  The problem is with navboxes, is that if they aren't bidirectional, they don't provide the functionality that they are supposed to.  Incidentally - I tried setting up WikiProject Navigation templates.  This is something you may be interested in (even though no-one else was!)  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you help me to understand candystriping.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (TPS) candystriping means that the lists alternate in shading. currently, in the navboxes above, Template:To Have and Have Not is all grey (or even style) and Template:The Old Man and the Sea is striped (although reverse of the typical since it is grey/white/grey instead of white/grey/white). the Template:A Farewell to Arms is off since it's grey/grey/white/grey.  in fact, the only one that seems to be correct is Template:The Sun Also Rises.  you can fix these by making sure the lists are ordered with no gaps (group1/list1, group2/list2, ...). Frietjes (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually meant candystriping in relation to a mass of navboxes at the bottom, sometimes of different colours. Maybe it's the wrong usage.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this version renders all of the above redundant, and does not increase the size too much. Why have 7 navboxes, when one will do? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer the by works templates personally, because it is easier for the reader to associate adaptations with the proper work without clicking through to the article. Works such as The Breaking Point (1950 film) and The Gun Runners are not easily associated with the proper work in a one navbox treats all format. Also at an adaptation of one work, like say The Sun Also Rises (ballet), is it really necessary to see adaptation of all other works or even a listing of all other Hemingway works?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's one solution that addresses a lot of concerns. Unfortunately navboxes are misused and overused, and the guidelines are often neglected, so they don't get treated with a lot of respect.  Besides, they barely pass the "rule of five" test.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That does not answer any of my concerns. WP:TFD usually goes by a rule of three test, but I concede that none of the Hemingway templates have a lot of adaptations. You still have not answered my question at Talk:The Sun Also Rises regarding WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. BTW, Let's keep the conversation over there as much as possible.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:UNT Music
another one that seems to have bidirectional issues. Frietjes (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know where to start with some of these! I just know that someone would get too precious about it, and I'd end up raising my blood pressure!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you. I merged the lists of faculty and alumni to their respective articles, so the majority of the information has been saved. Frietjes (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

consensus at guidelines, and stuff
All this arguing is wearing me a bit. See Village_pump_(policy). Let's see if we can agree on some general principles. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did you string my comments?
Why did you restring my comments back to the way Mama meta modal messed them up? PaleAqua (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone was deleting each others comments - I think I've put it back to how it should be, with the exception of a bit of indentation (using asterisks rather than colons). --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was trying to put stuff back as well. Guess I missed something? PaleAqua (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the comment on the OED. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Heavyhandedness
Your actions with all the templates has been inappropriate. You want to serve as both a discussant and the uninvolved administrator of the discussion. At the same time you seem to randomly be changing guidelines to support your inappropriate edits. You need to do one or the other (and preferably in a stable guideline environment). Either you should participate in the debate and contribute your opinion or stay uninvolved in the debate and decide how things should be resolved. When two people are working toward a compromise as and I have been, a third party is not suppose to come by and make a different decision without helping achieve consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're worrying about it too much - consensus was unanimous at Talk:The Sun Also Rises. Seemed pointless to hang around any longer.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises? That was consensus for use in the main article not in the adaptations. You are imagining consensus, but consensus was forming at Ernest Hemingway to do it the other way. Rob, remember when you said this. Why all the doublespeak now. You formerly said in regards to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL that it really only works when the templates stay on point and smaller templates exist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That Beatles example is about splitting the navbox down to its component parts as it is too big to be useful - i.e. have separate navboxes. With the Hemingway one, it's not too big to be useful, and the smaller templates were causing grief.  It's a simple compromise to merge those into one big navbox, and it seems to have mostly kept everyone happy.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to debate with someone who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. First, compromise was being reached on Ernest Hemingway, but you controverted that, which I am sure you understand but are acting like you don't. Second, there was no consensus at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises. Do you mind if I revert your edits toward the consensus that was being achieved rather than your inappropriate edits based on your three-headed role as discussant, administrator and guideline usurper?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My structure and yours are identical, the only difference is that you have used the unnecessary nested tables. And I'd like to point out that the merge of the navbox and initial work on it was my idea, in order to try to break the deadlock you were having at both the Hemingway article and The Sun Also Rises.  Also, WP:AGF.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Rob do you understand that being a discussant and uninvolved administrator are two different roles?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. the smaller templates are only unnecessary due to your arbitrary definition of big template. Many would argue that Ernest Hemingway is a large template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You redirected 2 of the Hemingway templates, CSDed 1 of them and left 3 of them alone. I have reverted to the consensus that was actually reached. These edits were not discussed at Talk:The Sun Also Rises or Talk:Ernest Hemingway and your WP:BIDIRECTIONAL change supporting this was reversed. Feel free to open a TFD on the 6 Hemingway templates. But as you have said already on similar discussions we should have is small, separate concises navboxes, each relating to a single subject or subset of the subject. You have also noted that this is only relevant for bothersomely large templates, but you feel that this template needs to be collapsed. I don't know where the problematically large borderline is, but it is likely near the point at which templates need to be collapsed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You know what? Fuck it.  You just don't get it, do you?  The comment at bidirectional only mentions one direction, which doesn't make sense.  You can see that from the discussion on the talk page.  Victoria wasn't aware you were nesting tables, so you do not have consensus for that.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. There are many reasons why BIDIRECTIONAL is only a suggestion and not a requirement. In templates regarding works, there are several types of subjects that should not be bidirectional. Suppose for example a template about a work has links to all of the characters (some fictional and some historical, e.g. The Last of the Mohicans or Henriad). Suppose for example a historical character in a work is King of England. We don't want every template about a work that includes the King of England to be included on that page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * why is this discussion here, and not on Template talk:Ernest Hemingway? Frietjes (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It also relates to 6 other Hemingway templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * and why again is this discussion on one user's talk page and not in a centralised location? Frietjes (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed at Talk:The Sun Also Rises and Talk:Ernest Hemingway, but Tony doesn't seem to agree with the unanimous consensus, so he decided to complain at me here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I repeat. Please reread the proposal at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises. It is only about using the template on that page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's about merging them all into one template. Have a proper read, starting from Talk:The Sun Also Rises.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:AN notice
FYI, see Administrators'_noticeboard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)