Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 32

message: This infobox war is starting to get out of hand. This is probably one of the lamest edit wars I've seen and should really be listed in WP:LAME. Whilst we are all hurling insults, accusations and 100 WP:DOCTRINE links, has anyone noticed that nothing is being accomplished. This argument isn't about content. No matter whether infoboxes are included or not, the article is NOT improved because nobody is adding any new content. My view is that no one has the right to dictate whether infoboxes stay or are removed if they're not willing to actually add something meaningful to an article.
If anyone is accusing me of ownership - well, I'm afraid this is where I totally disagree with WP's policy. Any major contributor to an article should have more rights to the format and layout of the article than some fly by editor who's only intention is to do a half minute rating and then tag an article Start or an obsessive microformatter who has no interest in the content of an article, merely that it has all the latest template transclusions.
My suggestion is that all these people who want people to agree with their views should first prove that they are actually interested in more than just a small coloured box in the top right of an article and actually the content of the article itself. Do some copyeditting, find some references. Anything...just stop engaging in a pointless exercise over an infobox. Centy</font> – [reply]• contribs – 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Let's just archive this whole debate and get on with editing. --Folantin 18:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I couldn't agree more! Although I would like your opinions on my suggestion given above. Nrswanson 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, enough. No new arguments are being brought to the table here. All the previous ones are available on this page, at WikiProject:Composers, the various article talk pages and WP:ANI. Please read them first and after that marathon perhaps you'll understand why most editors are thoroughly sick of the issue. Best. --Folantin 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The sooner the better. (Apologies to any newcomers who've joined the debate, but what you are detecting is immense weariness rather than hostility). --Folantin 18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you wish to turn current Wikipedia policy on its head, as proposed by 'CenturionZ 1', then WP:VP would be a good place to start; until you achieve that, policy remains as it is and ownership is not allowed. Andy Mabbett 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I advise that you just drop the issue, Andy, as I have. It's not important. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 21:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, do. You've trolled us non-stop for weeks and we're heartily sick of it. Once, it had amusement value. Now, it's just plain boring, and you're wasting time. Moreschi  Talk 22:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Andy Mabbett has just deleted Moreschi's last comment. I have just restored it. -- Kleinzach 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough! 

message: I propose we have a formal moratorium on all discussions about infoboxes at this project, for a period of at least six months from today's date (21 June 2007) to be noted on the project page (section 15). Please agree or disagree. -- Kleinzach 23:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not work by running votes to silence others and deny the opinions of those who don't agree with the loudest voices. Andy Mabbett 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironic you should be talking about "loudest voices", Mabbett. As far as I can see, the "loudest voice" trying to impose his dogma here is you. "Deny the opinions of others" is perfect description of what you have done over the last few weeks. Moreschi  Talk 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Andy, in case you are wondering where I was referring to where I say I get irritated by your contrinutions, this is the main place. --Peter cohen 11:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment: I added the word 'formal' above to the proposal above to mean that the moratorium if agreed would be noted on the project page under Infoboxes (Section 15). An informal moratorium - if that means saying Hey we discussed it last month, it's in Archive 26, sorry no Archive 28! - is not going to work. Each editor who has tried to re-ignite the issue in the past has simply brushed that aside.  -- Kleinzach 08:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: As long as it's phrased in a 'friendly' (for want of a better word) way, I think it's reasonable to note it on the project page. But I would avoid the use of 'formal' in the actual note. Frankly, a determined infoboxer would still brush aside the project page notice, and in addition could then come in firing with both barrels concerning censorship, debate stifling etc. Why provide the ammo? Best, Voceditenore 08:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Voce. A friendly notice to avoid further edit warring would be fine. We can refer interested newcomers to that and to the archives. Otherwise, as I've said above, it's generally regarded as disruptive to reignite debates again and again until you get your way. In such cases, we would have the "moral highground". --Folantin 09:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, we are in agreement. I didn't intend anything different. (Not as if we have to wear suits or anything. . . .) I have amended the proposal above to make it clearer. Please confirm it's OK now. -- Kleinzach 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine by me, and I like Moreschi's wording maybe slightly rephrased to: We're all a bit tired of discussing this issue right now, so before you bring it up, you really might like to check the archives here. And here. And here. Best, Voceditenore 10:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Just stick a "Thank you" on the end to make it extra-friendly. --Folantin 10:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's all fine by me. --GuillaumeTell 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've added the proposed note to the project page with all the relevant archived discussion I could find. I didn't add the debates from the individual article pages, but anybody who hasn't had their fill of reading about this discussion after ploughing through the links provided is clearly insane. --Folantin 11:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We can't enforce a specific date, but it might be OK if we added "Ideally, it would be best not to raise the topic again for at least another six months (date of writing: late June, 2007)". --Folantin 11:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's the point. Date the note. Date the moratorium. -- Kleinzach 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be best to date it as "June" rather than "June 21". Otherwise, by my calculation, we look like we're offering an invitation to restart the debate on December 21, right before Christmas. I don't think I could take it at that time of the year! Cheers. --Folantin 11:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose we tell any new editors who want to discuss infoboxes to drop the issue as we have reached a consensus to stop all discussions (in a friendly manner of course). (Andy: Your lone voice of I want the issue to continue does not constitute no consensus). If Andy does come back and try to force his views down our throats then we'll just ignore him. The guy's so deep in his own little microformat world that I've decided he's a lost cause to argue with. Not only that he doesn't realise he's pretty much argued our case for us. (Censorship, ownership - more applicable to his attitude to this matter then ours.) Centy</font> – [reply]• contribs – 13:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: People, ignore. Moreschi  Talk 13:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dismissing an editor, with whom you disagree, as a troll is not accepatabe. I'd be surprised you don't know that already. Andy Mabbett 13:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dismissing an editor with your singularly infamous history of disruption as a troll, on the other hand...Moreschi  Talk 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your resort to ad hominem suggests that you have no stronger argument to propound; you know there is no consensus and are trying to create a smoke-screen. Andy Mabbett 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Moreschi, although I'd just note as a point of comparison, for those unfamiliar with Andy Mabbett's unique debating style, it's worth checking out this discussion  where he himself actually wants a box removed from a page. --Folantin 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A box which contains a palpable lie. Andy Mabbett 13:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal:Moratorium on infobox discussions for 6 months