This template is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
This template currently overrides the default {{navbox}} colours with some garish ones chosen when the template was first created. So fas as I know, the argument used in the revert which restored them applies specifically to "no right answer" debates such as US/UK spelling; not to personal aesthetics on standardised templates. {{Navbox/doc}} specifically says that changing the default styles is not recommended, and the vast majority of Wikipedia's navbox templates now use the defaults. This template does not have a pressing reason to do otherwise, and indeed none has been given other than its original author's personal preference. As such, the default styling (and the rest of the uncontroversial changes which were reverted alongside it) should be restored. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk13:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Not recommended" does not make it a rule. The fact that you have stated above that the colors are "garish" shows that you were really trying to change it because of your personal tastes. A polite thread on possibly changing the colors would have been a better way and I'd be open to changing them but not to the same boring, mundane, homogeneous pastel purple. I can tell by your rationale used above that you must not be familiar with the fact that the first/major contributor does indeed have the right (as upheld by ArbCom) to hold to their preferences. Please see this. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That says "from one guideline-defined style to another". Thus, as I said before, it applies to specific situations such as the variant of English used in an article; it emphatically does not apply here, where no guideline suggests that editors should colour templates as they please and the template documentation itself specifically discourages this. That's two good reasons to use the default, and none to use personal preference. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk15:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's been no reply to these comments in six weeks, so I've removed the unnecessary styling again. There are various good reasons not to override (consistency and code size/compexity being key), while the main argument to keep seems to be a misunderstanding of the MoS's stability comments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk11:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While Berean Hunter (talk·contribs) is correct that Wikipedia:MOS#Stability of articles allows him, as the major contributor to the template, to use the style he prefers, I would remind him that it also refers to *articles*, which a template, AFAIK, is not considered, and that consensus on whether or not to change cannot happen without discussion. It would also be good to keep WP:AGF in mind with regards to assigning motives to other editors. My third opinion, however, (and note that this explicitly does *not* create, and should not be used in creation of, consensus), is that the styling should remain as Berean Hunter prefers in the absence of consensus to change it. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but you are (as a third party in the discussion) able to weigh in on who has the better arguments. I've gone through 3O for precisely this purpose in the past. The next step in an RfC, which seems very heavy-handed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk11:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am able to do so, yes, but I feel that to do so would be consensus-building, which I don't believe 3O should be used for. Feel free to re-list the dispute if you want another one. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 11:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
