Talk:23 skidoo

message: Wikipedia is based on the idea that things need to be discussed. Rash action is not a good thing, especially when it comes to editing articles. People will frequently disagree, so a compromise must be made. However, changing things to fit your personal preference while such discussion is on-going ruins everything. Both of you (Ed and 128.208.53.45) need to stop edit warring and talk these style issues over. Don't let it spill out onto other articles. --clpo13(talk) 10:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk?  Why?  I talked a good deal right here, and sincerely laid out my thoughts for consideration, but it really made no difference, did it? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because you didn't pay any attention to the thoughts of the others involved in the discussion. As it stands, we never came to an agreement on the style. You said your bit, I said mine, and you proceeded to ignore everything I said and put your style back in the article. That's not what I'd call a productive discussion. --clpo13(talk) 10:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, quite unproductive. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet you still continue to push your style preferences. I hope you don't intend to edit every single disambiguation page on Wikipedia to fit your views on usability. --clpo13(talk) 11:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been done before -- remember the guerilla attack on the "spoiler" tag? -- but I have no intention of doing that.  My philosophy is that I work on things as I come across them.  If they need lots of work, and it's a topic that I'm relatively conversant with, I put in a lot of work.  If they need minor fixes, I do minor fixes.  I make the articles I work on look as good as possible, as make them as functional and readable as possible for the user.  That's my focus.  Obviously, I don't have the time to do that kind of work on a lot of articles, but I do check random articles and make quick fixes on them when I have the time.  I'm not out to change the world, just a few articles here and there.Incidentally, if you get a moment, you might want to look at my talk page. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 11:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. That's how I edit as well. But considering the issues your style brings up, why do you continue implementing it without further discussion? I know the one here has, so far, been a bust, but surely something can be worked out. --clpo13(talk) 11:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, if you would post somewhere where I can see it a screenshot of all the whitespace my style choice supposedly is inserting into the disambiguation page, as per this, I'd be more than happy to see it.  I'm always happy to make decisions on the basis on concrete evidence.As for your question - well, as you say, fair enough. I really had no intention of carrying my thoughts about disambiguation page styling much further until I was slapped in the face by the anonymous editor, who wouldn't even give me the very minor satisfaction of prevailing on a page I created.  (And yes, I know all about not "owning" pages -- but, please, let's get real, one of the major factors that prevents Wikipedia from degenerating into an undifferentiated mass of random edits, vandalism, and high school pranks is that people feel a sense of "stewardship" about the pages they work hard on, and they maintain them in the face of the onslaught of the hordes.  That may not be "ownership", but it's damn close.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 11:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick screenshot on my laptop. here is the bold, spaced version and here is the non-bold, non-spaced version. I see a lot of whitespace, but my idea of "a lot" may differ from yours. (I hope those images hold up; ImageShack is an annoying image host, but the only one I could get quickly. Or can I upload personal images here? I doubt people would appreciate that, but I'm not sure.) And I understand you completely about this page, especially considering the tone of the anonymous user. Still, that's not much of a reason to go off to other pages. --clpo13(talk) 11:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the screenshots - that's pretty much what the pages look like to me, too, so at least I now know for certain that the question of whitespace is pretty much a matter of taste.  I was worried that differences in browser rendering meant that other people were seeing something extremely different from what I was seeing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion versus action

message: I won't do anything to the page, but I really wish you'd not cite discussion as a reason for your changes, Ed. The discussion has come to a dead-end time after time with the same results. An edit summary citing discussion as a reason for a change suggests that a consensus has been met. Still no consensus here, though. --clpo13(talk) 20:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is ongoing, yes, but this is the status quo for the page, that state of the page before the discussion began. Changes were made to the page by the anonymous editor while that discussion was under way, and the current edit returns the page to the state it was in before that precipitous change. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The status quo is wrong. 128.208.36.177 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. What is it about the layout that you think doesn't functional well? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise still not reached

message: This talk page begins with the claim:
:Disambiguation pages are formatted like any other article. 
Actually, I don't think that that's true.  WP:MOS indicates, for example, that wikilinks are supposed to be limited to one per line (entry) on dab pages.  The fact is, dab pages do have their own rules.  
Now as to the matter of these repeated boldfaced entries.  Ed claims to be doing this for the ease of the reader.  Hello?  Where is the survey that says that this makes it easier for the reader?  For me, I find it distinctly more difficult to read when this multiple bolding is used.  And, since WP:MOS does not indicate that bolding is to be used in Ed's fashion, I'm reverting.  Always open to discussion, of course.  Unschool (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  Since you came here with the intent to "butt heads" with me, I'm sure you'll excuse me if I don't give your opinions the weight you probably feel they should deserve. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. :-) Unschool (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dab pages