Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: Difference between revisions

:::::::::::::Then prove it. Tell me what you think an "ad hominem" is. [[User:George Ponderevo|George Ponderevo]] ([[User talk:George Ponderevo|talk]]) 23:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Why, so you can split hairs between over (formal) logical vs. colloquial use of the term? Who gains from that? All we get is another boring tangent, like the one about {{tq|"People looking for a map of Montacute House."}}, where you split hairs wherever is convenient to you, while contributing ''nothing'' to the discussion. Deraillery at its most time-consuming. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">[[User:Curly Turkey|Curly Turkey]]</span> ([[User talk:Curly Turkey|gobble]])</span> 23:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Gerda: I think attempts at proposals should be made at another time. How many tangents have there been already? Multiple attempts have been made to keep all this on topic, but staying on topic is not what the editors seem to be interested in. Let this thing close, and try again another time when people's heads have cooled off. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn nickname">[[User:Curly Turkey|Curly Turkey]]</span> ([[User talk:Curly Turkey|gobble]])</span> 21:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

:The tangents, such as metadata and accessibility, have been initiated by those with an almost religious fervour for infoboxes. Collapsing infoboxes, either completely or partially, has been offered as an interim compromise solution until there's something better on the table. Infoboxes have been partially collapsed for years, and so collapsing them even further under certain circumstances is simply an extension of that idea. It's not to do with "cool heads", it's to do with blind obsession. [[User:George Ponderevo|George Ponderevo]] ([[User talk:George Ponderevo|talk]]) 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)