Wikipedia talk:Not everything needs a navbox

untitled

 * I like. And may quote.  Simple English is rarely simple and common sense is rarely common, so something like this is very helpful. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

ironic
I find it ironic that this essay has a navbox on the page.--WhalesPsuchsdichs (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And it's as big as the essay! You can have template creep with a single template! RockMagnetist (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * < Not everything needs a navbox > ... < a couple of paragraphs > ... < MASSIVE NAVBOX PLENTY OF COLLAPSED SUB SECTIONS WITH A ZILLION LINKS EACH >. Amazing :) Sorry for the caps, but it was just how I felt the page.CamiloCBranco (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

As with all policy and style suggestions, common sense and consensus should prevail
I have no problem with that phrasing, I would assume it goes without saying. Could drop by the talk page and explain his reverts? I don't see that it's related to the current RfC. Mackensen (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. That phrasing appears uncontroversial. I might suggest rewording to: "As with all content and style suggestions, common sense, policy, and consensus should prevail." Mojoworker (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is controversial, as it really undermines the essence from essay. Secondly, it is not nice to change someone else words while a work is under discussion. He could better ask for a change than change it without prior discussion. The Banner  talk 20:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the above goes a long way to explaining the current brouhaha, since it makes explicit The Banner's understanding and use of WP:NENAN as a policy rather than as a guideline the interpretation of which requires discretion and a considereation of the particular circumstances. As Mackensen has commented in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion, nobody in that discussion has mentioned the idea that common sense should be applied when using this essay as a deletion rationale: I would suggest that this is because everybody with the exception of The Banner takes that as a given.TheLongTone (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL, we are discussing WP:NENAN and in the mean time you guys are trying to make essential changes to WP:NENAN. The Banner talk 21:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the original edit was on July 24, a day before the RfC began. Your revert came later, and the edit summary "No need to add that" would imply that you considered it as given and an unnecessary embroidery. If you in fact think otherwise, then your edit summary was grossly misleading and starting a discussion on the talk page--this discussion we're having now--would have been more appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was unaware of any request for comment, and even checked here for a discussion notice before restoring the reversion. --Zfish118 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
A request for comment regarding this essay has been started at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion