Template talk:Chopped

Formatting

Because it seems that even the tiniest modification is deemed "controversial", it seems necessary to explain the simple addition of italics. Because the list of competitors and episode comments are in the same box, the italics provide a break between one type of info (the competitors and their particulars) and another type of info (annotations about the episode). Agent 86 (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And this discussion would have started on a collegial footing had you resisted the need to start it with a sarcastic dig. I see no reason to add any formatting, which potentially puts WP:UNDUE attention on increasingly trivial notes. Drmargi (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't consider the comment sarcastic. As for the change, I fail to see how it runs contrary to WP:UNDUE beyond the mere assertion that it might. Such a suggestion is exactly why it seems that even the tiniest of changes garner controversy. Formatting to differentiate completely different types of information is no way contrary to a neutral point of view, which is the larger priciple under which UNDUE falls. One might as well say that by setting off the episode annotations, it gives undue attention upon the other information in the same box of the table. If anything, it would be justifiable to put episode annotations in their own cell in the table. Including it in the cell for the competitors minimizes the annotations. Agent 86 (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Eye of the beholder... Discussion is now divided, and a mess. I'll be happy to discuss further once you make up your mind where you want it -- here or on the episode talk page, and in which of FOUR threads you'd care to have the discussion center. Until then, BRD has been invoked, and I would hope you would let the discussion progress without continual reverts. Drmargi (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly, as pointed out previously, you have not followed the essay you are invoking. WP:BRD is not policy, or even a guideline. It is nothing more than an essay. Moreover, WP:BRD clearly states,

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

The essay also clearly sets out that if a user is going to invoke the essay, it should be backed up on the article's talk page. Merely invoking BRP in an edit summary is not enough.

Every time you have invoked this essay, it has been without you writing a single jot on a talk page. You simply asserted it in the edit summary. In contrast, I have gone to the talk page each time and set out my reasons and rationales, citing policies and guidelines, with references to the passages in those policies and guidelines. All you have cited are names of guidelines and essays that have titles that sound relevant, yet the content in no way supports your position. The only one reverting is you. I have simply restored edits that you have removed without real justification. Agent 86 (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Episode notes

I have changed the line item for episode annotations from "Competition notes" to "Episode notes". As indicated by the article's title, "List of Chopped episodes", the article is about the program's episodes and is not strictly limited to the competition within each episode. The annotations are appropriate for more than just things directly related to the cooking portion of the program, as it is appropriate to include annotations about anything of pertinence to a specific episode that is encyclopedic, such as information pertinent to the production of the program itself, contextual information about a specific episode, etc. Agent 86 (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have restored the edits I made earlier today, which I explained in my first entry under this heading. As it speaks for itself, and to elaborate would be little more than repetitive, I have restored the edits that were reverted with little explanation beyond reliance on an essay, and not on any rationale, reason, explanation, or policy justification.
  • To clarify any misunderstanding possibly arising from a typo in the edit summary, it should read, "Restore edits for which no rationale for reversion was provided beyond lack of "consensus", which, under policy, does not mean "unanimity". An essay is not justification". Agent 86 (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)