Wookieepedia:Trash compactor/Template:GG

Template:GG
This redirect represents a disturbing trend that is in danger of being established. With the ease of moving articles, templates&mdash;which are not as visible to editors as articles are&mdash;can be moved and cause major redirect conflicts. I have experienced in the past that such moves are rolled back or the redirect pages are deleted speedily to allow for the template to be restored to its original designation. A certain user has proposed moving several templates and has recently moved this one without informing the community for a consensus. I recently learned that he spoke a couple of people on IRC and they said, "sure." However, this sets a precedent of not having the editing community take part in making decisions that affect the editing community.

The reason for this particular move was stated that abbreviated initials or acronyms were "confusing" to editors. The template&mdash;, which was created in 2008, has never had any issues as the moving editor reported, and any future confusion is moot, since the products that the navbox template directs to are all out of print, so no future articles are forthcoming. Therefore, there will not be anyone to be confused.

This is similar to statements for other templates that have already had a consensus reached concerning their current separate existence.

Moving for the sake of moving is not a license to "be bold." There has to be a constructive reason for doing so. Therefore, I am requesting that this template redirect be deleted so that the template can be restored to its former state. If there is a legitimate reason to move the template, then the the user can propose moving it in a Consensus track discussion.

Allowing this move to remain opens the door for more template moves to take place without consensus, and remain moved until a consensus is reached to restore them. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 09:38, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Delete Redirect/restore template (let Consensus process govern change)

 * 1) &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave  05:04, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Keep Redirect/leave template "as is" (let IRC talk trump Consensus process)

 * 1) It's my belief that a Consensus Track thread is only necessary as the conduct a survey step of the dispute resolution process and is not necessary for a typical rename for a template unlikely to cause controversy. While I perhaps ought to have written something on the talk page of the template, I stand behind my rationale that moving from "GG" to "Galaxy Guides" in order to eliminate an uncommon abbreviation, is a proper use of being bold, especially if the considerations listed under the actions and edits with widespread effects header of that page are taken into account (which they were in this case). -Thunderforge (talk) 09:51, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Remember, keeping "as is" means opening the door for more arbitrary template moving. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 05:04, July 14, 2013 (UTC) Merged with another template Refined to be more helpful Kept as is   Deleted So, allowing the template to be redirected means possibly creating conflict with template handling that has already been discussed by the community in a consensus. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 05:15, July 14, 2013 (UTC) To be clear, the edit summary for moving the template in question was "This abbreviation is not commonly used in the Star Wars community and may result in some confusion. Being bold and moving to a more descriptive name." I do not believe that this is an "arbitrary template move", which is why I voted to keep the change as it is. -Thunderforge (talk) 09:56, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that a reorganization project regarding the templates has already been initiated and that allowing users to go about moving them around willy-nilly is going to run into issues with those trying to reorganize the template formats. Not only that, but even the users working on the reorganization initiative have acknowledged that, in regards to the changes to templates they will be "having a discussion about whether or not such templates should be:
 * Just to note, while Thunderforge assures me that his intent is not to restructure all the templates, I still see this as precedent-setting. Without consensus conducted here on this wiki (and, instead, a decision made on IRC), the community is not involved in these changes. If the process to have changes reverted is through this forum, then the initial move needs to be through CT as well. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 08:12, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Even though a request to withdraw from discussing this controversial topic was issued, continuation of this discussion has been initiated. Therefore, since comments have been made here by my opponent in this discussion, I find the need to answer them. First, "arbitrary" is defined as "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Since there is no system in place, as has been established in this discussion by an admin, and for good reason as he explained in that discussion, this change follows the personal choice of the user that moved the template and not the Wookieepedia community, who did not vote on that move. The second definition of "arbitrary" is "unrestrained and autocratic (power is concentrated in the hands of one person) in the use of authority." In this case, the power to move the template was used by the editor without being restrained from doing so, even though the community had no say in the matter. Both of these definitions fit this action as "arbitrary."
 * Furthermore, since "being bold" has been brought up, the policy on being bold has been brought up as the justification for these changes. However, the same policy cautions, ...but don't be reckless! Now, while this is not necessarily a reckless move, it certainly has guidelines on how such impacting changes should be made. The policy specifically warns against making impacting fundamental changes to articles (or templates) that have long-standing histories that the user wanting to edit them hasn't looked into without first investigating the articles (or, in this case, templates) evolution. "An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily." If the policy has been examined, why be surprised if anger is a response to drastic changes? Why, instead, have not the other facets of the Be Bold policy not been used: If you would like to edit an article on a controversial subject," such as a template, "view the page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is. If you... want to change," such as with a move, "or delete anything substantial in the text, it's a good idea to list your objections one by one in the talk page, reasonably quoting the disputed phrases, explaining your reasoning and providing solid references. Then, wait for responses for at least a day: people edit Wookieepedia in their spare time and may not respond immediately. If no one objects, proceed, but always move large deletions to the Talk page and list your objections to the text so that other people will understand your changes and will be able to follow the history of the page. Also be sure to leave a descriptive edit summary detailing your change and reasoning." The only thing that was done in this case was the descriptive edit summary. None of the other guidelines were followed. Moving templates in this manner without getting a consensus or feedback from the community is not Being Bold&mdash;it is being reckless, and that is what appears to have happened here. Although IRC was mentioned as the medium through which "permission" was granted, this flies in the face of the direction the community wishes to go in these matter, since their voice is not being considered. &mdash; Gethralkin  Hyperwave 10:37, July 14, 2013 (UTC)