Template talk:Disambig header

Recent change
My bad, guys. I didn't know that every solitary template revision, no matter how small, had to be discussed before going into effect, even if said change is beneficial and better than the last version. Also, you don't know what an edit war is at all, Spartacus. Noddy (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2014 (EST) "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion."

- Wikipedia


 * The above definition fits the current situation. I suggest you refrain from the sarcasm and caps in edit summaries, as users won't take you seriously when you do that. This goes as a warning to cool it.-- 23:29, 14 December 2014 (EST)
 * Being snarky isn't helping the situation, Noddy. Just state why you felt this template warranted revision in a drastic fashion from its present form and we'll hear you out. It's that simple. Simply give us a heads up. This is a collaborative effort.
 * @Spartacus: "Repeatedly." I'm pretty sure me and Helianthus only undid one edit... Not seeing why you went over-the-top and locked editing on the page for normal users.


 * @Helianthus: I guess neither you nor Spartacus bothered to take a look at the minor change I made: I simply added more parameters for pages that mention more than one similarly titled or associated page in the template header (ex: Forerunner, which is now messed up). Noddy (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2014 (EST)
 * To our knowledge these are your first ever edits to Halopedia. While we can absolutely forgive you for being unaware of our procedures, no matter how useful your revisions are, which they do appear to be valid, conducting yourself the way you did with edit warring and aggressive comments is not acceptable. The content itself is not in question, mind you, but instead, it's that you didn't consult with the rest of the wiki to see if what you needed fell in line with its needs or even was necessary. As a new user, you should be conscious of how things operate on the wiki to get a feel for it before going off on your own.
 * Spouting that "you're a new guy" nonsense? Tsk, yeah... It's not like you joined in July of this year and have a total of only 242 edits.


 * Stop trying to act all high and mighty just because you joined earlier than I did. You have about as much credibility as any other newcomer on this site, buddy. Noddy (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2014 (EST)
 * No matter how many edits you may have, that does not ignore the fact that you're interacting with an aggressive tone towards others. Like I said, that's not how we do things. When an edit has far-reaching implications such as on a template or a MediaWiki page, it's best that you discuss it with others no matter how minuscule you believe it to be. Halopedia, like all wikis, is a collaborative effort among a handful, dozens, or even countless editors all with unique input. In a lot of cases it would behoove you to hear what your fellow contributors have to say on that matter, as we attempted to do with you. All we want you to do is chat with us about what you'd like to do.

You say "we" as if you're an avid contributor to the site or something with knowledge on par with a rollback or sysop. Seriously, you can stop trying to tell me how wikis work, as I'm pretty sure I've edited more wikis than you, for a longer period of time as well (this assessment being based solely on your behavior thus far). My point is that revisions as minor as mine was do not warrant discussions, especially when they're beneficial and contribute to wiki consistency; I'm pretty sure Wikipedians don't discuss every solitary change to templates before publishing said changes; hell, I'm 100% that these Halopedians here don't discuss every template change before going through with it either. I'm just being flamed because I'm new to the site, by a novice with rudimentary wiki experience and knowledge at that, ironically enough. Noddy (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2014 (EST)
 * So, are you going to detail the intentions behind your original revisions, which we would appreciate, or are you going to continue to argue?
 * Are you going to continue to show your inexperience, or are you going to actually read my second response above that I directed towards you, where I explained the purpose of my change to the template? Noddy (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2014 (EST)
 * Alright, drop the personal attacks. Helianthus has been commendably polite to you and all this complaining isn't helping people take your case seriously at all. Going back to your revisions to the template, I'm not sure why it needs a box or why the text in the first field should be in bold. The box only makes the template stand out more than it needs to and the bolded text feels off. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 00:30, 15 December 2014 (EST)
 * I apologize for not recognizing that earlier. As I'm not so technically inclined as yourself or our staff of other like-minded individuals, I do not feel like it is my place to chime in with any knowledgable input. What I do lack in knowledge of HTML and such languages, however, I attempt to make up for it in organizing a community effort at the smallest levels to ensure everyone can be on the same page. This is what I was trying to encourage, and despite my ignorance to your previous response, there was absolutely no need for you to speak provocatively. As for my perceived inexperience, while this account is indeed brand new, I previously contributed under the username Grizzlei for a couple years.
 * @Jugus: The box can be removed (even if it was intended to stand out, so readers can see the disambiguation articles more clearly), along with the bold face (even if it helps to quickly inform readers what the article they have opened is about, if they happen to be on the wrong page), but to completely remove the additional parameters of the template rather than simply removing the aforementioned is ridiculous, especially when the additional parameters enable the extended usage of the template, in place of typed up, Disambig header replacement text (refer to Forerunner, John Forge and Sierra 117 prior to my revisions).


 * @Grizzlei: Why make another account? Regardless, this didn't warrant this drawn out discussion. Spartacus or Jugus could have simply removed the box and bold face, as the main purpose of my revision was to add the additional parameters, so I could then go through pages with typed up Disambig header text in place of the actual template and add the template, without running into the problem I did on the Forerunner article (two mentioned disambiguations), in an attempt to keep things consistent. Noddy (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2014 (EST)
 * I get the point behind the box and I know some wikis use that sort of thing, but I'm still not fully convinced about it (I personally believe it makes the header look unnecessarily flashy, though I'm not fully ruling it out). As for the addition of multiple parameters, that is an absolutely welcome contribution. I believe this whole debacle could've been avoided if you had explained yourself in the first place. Just for future reference. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 01:21, 15 December 2014 (EST)