 | This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Image
I am opening this discussion for contributors to express their opinion on whether to have or not an image in this navigation template, as in this version for example. I am against having an image because not only it is too large, but without it the template looks cleaner and easier to read (more space for text). BaboneCar (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, it shouldn't have an image. The title is quite enough to identify the set of topics. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It should have an image,because it looks a lot better with it and it loks more professional wiht it, without the image it looks like something a 6 year old made, the image makes it look much better and makes more sense than not having the imgae. If the template does not have an image, it will look unfinished, amateur, unprofessional, boring, uninspired and just won't look right without it. So this needs to have the image,and we need to wait until more people voice their opinions to make a decision about, I say give it a week or so. But the imgae needs to be kept in my opinion, and I think most of the readers and the other editors agree. Etonmessisthebest (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Sister Marques Section
Most of the VW Group brands and marques, if not all of them have this segment in their template, it has been in the template for years and it should remain in the template as there is no valid reason to remove it, sif Babonecar or someone else whishes to protest this, dicsuss this on the talk page and we can reach a consensus, but I think that reverting to the edit by NHS___ is the best decision for now, and I hope that no one vandalises it again. Thanks. Etonmessisthebest (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- There was already given a valid reason in the edit summaries, which is that the navigation template containing these links is supposed to be in all articles and that template is Template:Volkswagen Group. There is no need for duplicating this information. The fact that this information exits in other templates is not a reason to keep it, they may be wrong too. Also, per the WP:BRD cycle it is you that you have to get consensus for your edits before reverting to a version made by you. BaboneCar (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, thank you for your reply. First off, I did not revert to a version made by me, I reverted to a version made by |NSH002]], to which I have no connection or involvement. Thus the policy you cited does not apply to this situation. However, you violated that policy yourself by reverting to a version made by yourself, Babonecar. thus you are in violation of WP:BRD. You did not reach a consensus nor did you consult anyone else prior to you making such a drastic and extreme edit, that looks to me to constitute vandalism of this template.
- There was no valid reason in the edit summaries, I beg to differ. There was no valid reason given to justify what you did. Why should almost half of the template be erased, when there was no reason given other than it being pointless to include it, which is just not true. Including the sister marques segment, which has been in the template for many years, as well as many other VW Group templates for many years, including the sister marques section helps the user/reader navigate to other articles about VW Group brands, and helps the user/reader understand that Skoda is a part of the VW Group and find out more about the company, if they'd like to of course.
- And the image makes the template look much better, and an image has been in the template for a long time, and images are in most other automobile brand templates, as well. it just looks a lot better, more professional, cleaner, crisper, than without it. Without the image it looks, unfinished, amateurish, and having the image helps the reader understand that this template is about Skoda Auto, not any of the other Skodas (which there are several other things called Skoda, mind you.).
- So I think that the section should be kept, and the image should be kept as well.And i propose that we continue with the reversion to the version of the template made by NHS002,a neutral third-party, and just go with that. If you still are not willing to compromise, then we should wait, let's say a week, leave the template as it is now, and let some neutral third-party editors come in and say what they think whichever option has the most editors in favour of it will become the most-recent version of the template.
- So the option I propose is, let's keep the template the way it is under NHS002's edit, as it is better for the users/readers, it looks much nicer, it brings symmetery and continuity to the various VW Group templates. Etonmessisthebest (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- In this edit, on 29 May 2016, you added the sister marques section, then in this edit, on 3 June 2016, I reverted your edit providing valid and relevant reason (no matter how you personally qualify it). At this point, as per the WP:BRD cycle, you should have come to the talk page and discuss your changes to achieve consensus. Instead, in the next revision, you undid my edits straight away, without looking for consensus on the talk page. At this point, it is you who is violating the WP:BRD policy. NSH002's edit was neutral regarding this dispute and he did not come to the talk page either.
- 1) I did no drastic, nor extreme edit, you'd better stop exaggerating if you want to be taken seriously. I simply removed a section that is present already in another template on the Škoda Auto article. (And the image, which I don't prefer on the template, and one other user too so far in the previous section of this talk page.) 2) There is no prevalent opinion for your edits yet, so per the WP:BRD cycle you should stop reverting and discuss, let others express opinions on the matter. 3) You should stop ignoring that I have given a valid reason already.
- So there are three reasons why you should reconsider your position on this matter and stop edit warring. 4) There is no need to capitalize the template group names, see WP:MOSCAPS. 5) Did you check, before reverting, how links in the "Historic models" group show up?. BaboneCar (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I personally don't see the point of adding all the VW group marques in the Škoda template. A link to the VW group is more than enough, and that's provided on the template title. Including all the VW group marques kind of invalidates the existence of a Škoda-centred template, as implies it may be better to have a centralised VW group template. Besides, there's a consistency issue as almost no other subsidiary-marque-division templates include all its "sister" marques (examples are Template:Opel, Template:Jaguar Land Rover, Template:Chrysler Group LLC, etc), if they include other marques, those are marques owned by themselves, not by the parent company. In fact, the only templates that include all the group marques are VW group templates. As for the image, I'm neutral on that, but if a consensus already decided against image inclusion it should have been respected. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- If no claim against it is made by tomorrow, I'll return the template to the consensus version, which is without image and without a "sister marques" (Porsche would be more like a "cousin") section. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Done --Urbanoc (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- If no claim against it is made by tomorrow, I'll return the template to the consensus version, which is without image and without a "sister marques" (Porsche would be more like a "cousin") section. --Urbanoc (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I personally don't see the point of adding all the VW group marques in the Škoda template. A link to the VW group is more than enough, and that's provided on the template title. Including all the VW group marques kind of invalidates the existence of a Škoda-centred template, as implies it may be better to have a centralised VW group template. Besides, there's a consistency issue as almost no other subsidiary-marque-division templates include all its "sister" marques (examples are Template:Opel, Template:Jaguar Land Rover, Template:Chrysler Group LLC, etc), if they include other marques, those are marques owned by themselves, not by the parent company. In fact, the only templates that include all the group marques are VW group templates. As for the image, I'm neutral on that, but if a consensus already decided against image inclusion it should have been respected. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- So there are three reasons why you should reconsider your position on this matter and stop edit warring. 4) There is no need to capitalize the template group names, see WP:MOSCAPS. 5) Did you check, before reverting, how links in the "Historic models" group show up?. BaboneCar (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)