Talk:tarantella

Noun formatting.
Sorry if this heading isn't using the right terminology, but I noticed a note in this page's history about a "rouge [sp?] template." I looked it up, and it doesn't seem to rogue to me at all. In fact, seems to be included on the lead page, which is linked from the ELE as the prime example of what a page should look like. Can someone explain why is rogue? Thanks! &mdash; V-ball 23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it was created counter to the style of existing Wiktionary entries. The formatting conventions were discussed for over a year, gradually refined, when the rogue templates were added, ignoring all previous discussions.


 * As a compromise to the ensuing revert & flame wars, Ec mandated that to ensure flexibility of Wiktioanry as a whole, both types of templates should be permitted (at which point the perpetrator of the "box" style templates usurped the proposed names for the next generation of "good" templates, assering his incompatible style.)


 * This of course, resulted in another round of revert wars, where again, Ec pointedly sided with the offender, mandating that replacement of either style template with the other must be considered POV. This made some sense, as at the time, the perpetrtor was claiming the "box" style was "popular."  In fact, it was only present at all as a result of hundreds of blatant POV edits.


 * The story in detail, is of course, much longer. It is sad that the "box" style has hampered the normal development the various inflection templates were receiving.  Obstruction is a way of life for some people, I guess.


 * The summary is this: it is incorrect and POV to replace one style template with the other. --Connel MacKenzie T C