Board Thread:Suggestions/@comment-28398720-20160827152805/@comment-27794543-20160918115249

TotallyTinkerbell wrote: There is no need for a timetable or a limit in which objections are welcome. If someone came into this discussion right now, they'd still have to be heard. ... I'm just saying that I believed the final decision was being taken a bit fast. People can object to anything anytime they want. Even if a discussion took six month, it concluded, and changes were enacted, a person can still come and complain the following day. That's how wikis work.

If you want to set some required wait time before changes can be enacted, then you actually have to tell people about this rule and put it into policy. Otherwise, you're rebuking people for not waiting an unknown, undefined time period. I've done much larger changes elsewhere (on wikis larger & smaller than this one) after waiting similar time periods and this is the first time an admin says it's too hasty. So, define your required wait time.

Sorry if I sound frustrated, but that's only because I am.

About the templategate : I am very much aware that templates get edited because they're unlocked. That doesn't mean it's okay. ... they need permission from the community. I haven't seen anywhere in policy that states all template edits require a discussion in forums. If this is a rule, then please add it to policy. Otherwise people will continue editing templates, just like they continue editing all the other pages on this wikia.

Like article edits, not all template edits need discussions. I've done plenty of template edits on Wikipedia (and on various wikias), the same why I've done article edits on Wikipedia: I went for it. Obviously edits that break pages aren't allowed and those making major display changes should be discussed. But most run-of-the-mill changes, should follow the BRD cycle. Requiring a discuss, wait six months, implement cycle is just a nuisance for most edits. (That said, this particular infobox edit needed discussion, which it got.)


 * Air Date vs Airdate: 1 vote for space, 1 vote against space, 2 abstains
 * Air Date label (this is obviously impacted by above decision):
 * "Original Air Date" / "Original Airdate" – 2 for, 2 against
 * "Premiere" – 1 for, 2 against
 * "First Aired" – 2 for, 2 against
 * "Air Date" / "Airdate" – 2 for (me, Taya)
 * "Original Air Date" / "Original Airdate" – 2 for (me, Bugthe)
 * Previous/Next: so far, everyone likes capitalization & arrows (though Bugthe adds caution on arrows & my response)
 * Header: so far, no one has objected to adding new header between image & air date; "Release Information" seems to be acceptable text