Template talk:Michelin stars in Drenthe, Netherlands

Empty rows

Can The Banner please explain why he thinks it's necessary for the template to have two empty rows? To me it makes no sense and seems a waste of screen real-estate. In what way was removing them "not helpful"? Kleuske (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Because I had not yet updated (i.e. forgot) the article De Groene Lantaarn. It received a second star for 2016. The Banner talk 12:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This template is one of a big series of templates. All with the same layout, for clarity reasons. The Banner talk 11:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no more than one template on each of the pages that use them. Hence clarity and layout are not arguments for an empty row. An empty row does not add any "clarity". Moreover the extra restaurant could have been be added without reverting anyone. Kleuske (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The whole series of templates has the same layout. It is the fact that the layout is the same for all 14 templates that provide the clarity. No need to change that. The Banner talk 13:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The 14 templates are never shown at the same time, so that argument is moot. Whose "clarity" are you talking about? Yours or the readers? Kleuske (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit warring is not a good argument either... But that is what I am used of you. The Banner talk 16:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please confine yourself to the subject at hand and refrain from assuming bad faith like throwing around vacuous accusations. The above can easily be construed as a personal attack. Kleuske (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

People could also see that you have no real reasons for damaging this template and they can see that you are on the brink of edit warring. And edit warring is contrary to WP:AGF. The Banner talk 21:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring has nothing to do with assuming good faith. Removing an empty row is not the same as "damaging this template". Kindly constrain your rhetoric and refrain from making accusations. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I note you have no arguments for introducing empty rows, so I'll be brave and call it consensus. Kleuske (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

LOL, your second removal was absolutely without any explanation. Your first removal turned out to be wrong. And what you mean with It's a waste of screen real-estate, too is an absolute mystery to me.

So you quickly move to ignoring my arguments that there is a series of 14 templates that on purpose have the same layout as they cover the same subjects. And that it leads to consistency and easier use of the templates.

To call your roaring consensus is again not conform WP:AGF. The Banner talk 22:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please take some time and actually read WP:AGF. You'll find it says nothing on the subject of edit warring (as you claimed before) or "being brave and calling it consensus".

But, on the subject... Templates do not have to look the same on every page and adding empty rows does not make writing {{Michelin stars in Drenthe, Netherlands}} easier. About the screen real-estate: People check wikipedia on many platforms and some have (relatively) tiny screens. It is not a service to them if you use that limited amount of screen area to display no information whatsoever. Wikipedia:Navigation templates: "They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value". Admittedly, that's an essay, not a policy or guideline, but it's still good advice. Kleuske (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Classic, you can't win it on argument so you try to get me blocked via AN/I. So far WP:AGF. The Banner talk 12:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you have anything in the way of actual arguments which haven't been refuted? The above is a personal attack. Kleuske (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact I am still waiting on your arguments. Ow, and a empty row IS information: in that area are or never were restaurants with xx stars. The Banner talk 11:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but for the sake of completeness...

• Consistency isn't a reason to include an empty line. Only one of the templates is shown on any page.
• Our readers may consult Wikipedia on relatively small screens. It's not helpful to waste that limited amount of screen space to show no information whatsoever.
• The empty line suggests an error (Thanks Softlavender) and is confusing.

Tjuus, Kleuske (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, you never hear arguments that do not suit you. And the empty line does show information, namely that there were not yet restaurants with three stars in that area. Softlavender is wrong on that point. The Banner talk 12:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I heard/read your argument(s), but that seems to be a one-way street. Again... There's no significant difference between an empty line and a missing line in that respect. Both confer the same message: there are no three-star restaurants in Drenthe, so that point is moot. Kleuske (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• The Banner, please gain talk page consensus, or start an RfC, before replacing an empty and unnecessary parameter in the template. Template style is not to have empty parameters. In all probability there will never be any three-Michelin-star restaurants in Drenthe. You have three editors disagreeing with you here, so the consensus is against you, yet you are still edit-warring. I am going to remove the empty parameter again, and place an edit-warring warning on your talk page. Softlavender (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Please review what you did with your revert. The line was NOT EMPTY as you claimed. It contained useful information. The Banner talk 12:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It is empty, as there have been no three-stars awarded. Softlavender (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

And so you destroy the info that there were no restaurants with three stars awarded and leave the readers in the dark. Maybe thinking that an error was made? The Banner talk 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You need to get consensus before replacing a parameter that has no actual entries. Kleuske and Gidonb can give their opinions on whether they accept a parameter filled out as "- (not yet awarded)": [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

And now you change the tune.... Again purism wins over sensibility. The Banner talk 13:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The "not yet awarded" line is even worse than an empty line. It implies that two or three stars will be awarded some time in the foreseeable future. That's misleading. Kleuske (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Michelin stars are rare; three stars are almost unheard of. Only two three-starred restaurants exist in all of the Netherlands. Wikipedia should never imply that two- or three-stars will be awarded. Softlavender (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Funny, consistency about the whole series of templates was no argument to keep the original layout. But now Kleuske was removing the lines in the whole series conform the arguments here. Measuring with different sizes and definitely not in the best interest of Wikipedia. The Banner talk 11:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That has two reasons:

1. The debate does not need to be repeated for all templates separately. The arguments here apply to the other templates in exactly the same way.
2. The line "not yet awarded" is misleading in all the templates in this series, too.

Kleuske (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Strange that when it suits you consistency is important but when it does not suit you it is not. The Banner talk 12:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

For completeness sake: @Softlavender: There have been a number of three-star restaurants in the Netherlands, Parkheuvel in Rotterdam (now two) and the De Librije (still three) in Zwolle, to name but two. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I misread... Sorry. Kleuske (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)