| Revision as of 20:16, 25 September 2013 editMartinvl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,715 edits →Template headings← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:03, 20 October 2013 edit undoMichael Glass (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,667 edits →Template headings: Let's start with something where we are more likely to find common ground.Next edit → | ||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| As the template is blocked, I think it would be a good idea for all interested editors to exchange views on how it could be improved. There is a lot of common ground between the two versions that have been in contention. Let us see if we can get the best features of both of them and produce a common version that everyone can find acceptable. ] (]) 01:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC) | As the template is blocked, I think it would be a good idea for all interested editors to exchange views on how it could be improved. There is a lot of common ground between the two versions that have been in contention. Let us see if we can get the best features of both of them and produce a common version that everyone can find acceptable. ] (]) 01:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :The first thing that needs to be agreed is which articles should be included in the template. We then need to agree how they should be classified. My suggested list is the list given in the version of the article that EzEdit reverted. I am quite happy to adjust the classifications. ] (]) 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | :The first thing that needs to be agreed is which articles should be included in the template. We then need to agree how they should be classified. My suggested list is the list given in the version of the article that EzEdit reverted. I am quite happy to adjust the classifications. ] (]) 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| It could be difficult to begin negotiating on the most contentious areas. I think it might be better to begin by looking at areas where we are more likely to find common ground. Then we could look at areas that are more contentious.] (]) 10:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:03, 20 October 2013
 | Measurement (defunct) | |||
| ||||
Systems of measurement article is the origin of this template and as such covers the exact topic in detail. Measurement can be reached via Systems of measurement. I just wonder whether plain old ] won't do a better job than ] of ] in terms of providing a navigational aid. JIMp talk·cont History of the metric system
Martinvl, has added History of the metric system, undoubtedly in good faith. However, this article is not about the system per se but its history. Were we to carry on in this direction the template may be quite crowded with various aspects of various systems, of measurement in general, of this and of that. Do we need this link? We can still get there via the Metric system article. I propose to revert this addition. JIMp talk·cont 06:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- It was added back. I suppose there is some merit to having this here but there must be a better place than in a list of various metric systems (SI, cgs, etc.). The best place I could think of was right under the main "metric system" link so I put it there. The same goes for the introduction article. JIMp talk·cont 01:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is unnecessary, as is all his other stuff he keeps adding there. It is already linked to from inside the metric system article. EzEdit (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- EzEdit's revocation involves three articles, each of which should be discussed under their own merits:
- Outline of the metric system is a top-level article complying with Misplaced Pages:Outlines and certainly deserves a mention somewhere on the template. It contains links to all the metric system articles.
- Introduction to the metric system is an introductory article as per Misplaced Pages:Make technical articles understandable, but is otherwise no different to the articles metric system or international system of units. It certainly deserves a mention on the template.
- History of the metric system - OK, this one is marginal, but not the other two.
- Martinvl (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone interested in any of those will click metric system, then there they will find those links and more. We don't need this index template cluttered with links to every damned article loosely related to the metric system. If you do do that, you'll need to provide links to every damned article about every other measurement system too - TO KEEP IT BALANCED. EzEdit (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- A number of points:
- There is no need to shout.
- There is no need to use bad language.
- In order to redress EzEdit's comments about other systems, I have broken the section on Customary systems into two - current systems and historic systems. Martinvl (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- A number of points:
- Anyone interested in any of those will click metric system, then there they will find those links and more. We don't need this index template cluttered with links to every damned article loosely related to the metric system. If you do do that, you'll need to provide links to every damned article about every other measurement system too - TO KEEP IT BALANCED. EzEdit (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- EzEdit's revocation involves three articles, each of which should be discussed under their own merits:
- I see no shouting and I see no bad language. I see word emphasis and a strong belief that these changes are unnecessary and create an unbalanced POV. See how all the articles relating to the metric system were placed all together the top left hand box, the prime-location box, whilst anything to do with customary/English units was obfuscated and hidden in amongst all the obscure and historical crap in the lower right side boxes. Customary is the second most common system so needs similar treatment to the metric system. Let's KEEP IT BALANCED please. EzEdit (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages has a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. You boldly made some changes. I reverted them. It is time to discusss. Reinstating you changes prior to any discussion will only result in a WP:3RR block. Martinvl (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've just reverted your bold and devious attempt to introduce un-discussed changes. EzEdit (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop edit-warring. You have made no attempt to look at my original comments. You have made no attempt to comment on my subsequent re-organisation (splitting customary units in current use from those that are no longer in use). You have made no constructive comments other than in your view things are unbalanced - a view that I do not share with you. As far as I am concerned previous consensus was that all the articles should be catalogued. Martinvl (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I've just reverted your bold and devious attempt to introduce un-discussed changes. EzEdit (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- You are wrong, I'm reverting your changes; not you mine! You added unjustified links to your article without agreement here. All I've done is restored the original state of the article. I had made not additions or subtractions of content. If anyone is warring, it is you! The links you keep adding are not required, this is a list of top-level articles on unit systems, it doesn't need links to all your articles, which are, no doubt, already linked to from the main SI article. Please stop your game. EzEdit (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Reverted again as no discussion took place. EzEdit (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just protected the article for three days one month due to the edit warring. Please discuss the issue here to try to come to a consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Mark Arsten: You protected it for 30 days, not 3. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant to protect it for a month, but I will unprotect early if a consensus develops. I protected a different article for three days a minute later and pasted the same comment onto both talk pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Template headings
My attention has been drawn to this discussion and I note that there has been an edit war going on. It appears to be about what should and should not be in the template. As someone who has not been involved in this dispute, I hope I can bring a fresh perspective to it.
- The headings Conventional and Current are not immediately clear. I think it would be preferable to refer to Ancient Systems, Historic Systems. and Current systems. I think that Mesures usuelles would be classed as historic, perhaps in a section about historic metric systems. I think the Apocatheries' System is largely if not completely historic by now.
- I think it would be a good idea to provide a link in the template to introduction to the metric system. and the historic versions of the metric system should be classed separately in the template, as they are of historic interest rather than immediate practical use.
As the template is blocked, I think it would be a good idea for all interested editors to exchange views on how it could be improved. There is a lot of common ground between the two versions that have been in contention. Let us see if we can get the best features of both of them and produce a common version that everyone can find acceptable. Michael Glass (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- The first thing that needs to be agreed is which articles should be included in the template. We then need to agree how they should be classified. My suggested list is the list given in the version of the article that EzEdit reverted. I am quite happy to adjust the classifications. Martinvl (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
It could be difficult to begin negotiating on the most contentious areas. I think it might be better to begin by looking at areas where we are more likely to find common ground. Then we could look at areas that are more contentious.Michael Glass (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)