User talk:Fischbol

September 2015

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Remains (Alkaline Trio album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Damned. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Long Forgotten Songs: B-Sides & Covers 2000–2013, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Appeal to Reason.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo edit

Per MOS:VAR, MOS:RETAIN, and WP:ALBUMSTYLE, please undo this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Useless_Trinkets:_B-Sides,_Soundtracks,_Rarities_and_Unreleased_1996%E2%80%932006&diff=0&oldid=1212380230 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No.

MOS:RETAIN refers to langauge styles, which is completely inapplicable here; I'm not sure why you cited it.

WP:ALBUMSTYLE doesn't seem to have any issue with my edit either. It literally says: "In more complicated situations (releases with a wide variety of writers/producers, compilations culled from multiple sources, etc.), a table or the {Track listing} template may be a better choice." So again, not sure what your point is.

With MOS:VAR, I actually do understand the point you're trying to make: I shouldn't just change one style to another based on personal preference. The section says "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the cahnge". However, I argue that there is a substantial reason: consolidating sections. Having a tracklist section with most of the information about each track (title, length, writer(s)), and then another section under it clumsily listing the origins of each song is, at best, inefficient. If this were just a matter of me saying 'I think this style is more efficient, so I'll switch to it', then that would go against MOS:VAR. However, I am objectively consolidating an entire unnecessary section into a necessary one without losing any information. If switching a single section from one optional style to another can have that much of an impact on an article's structure, I argue that constitutes a "substantial change".

I'll keep your warning in mind for the future, and make sure to only do this to compilation albums where a) I'm actively adding new information such as original releases, or b) removing a Song Origins section like I did here, with Useless Trinkets. Fischbol (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted, it is not appropriate to change the existing style. I am asking you again to undo it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

??? That's not at all what I "noted". The section of the style guide that you cited says very clearly:

"it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change".

I clearly laid out why I think the benefits of consolidating the two sections constitutes a "substantial change". If you have any further reasoning or evidence from the manual of style to contradict me, be my guest. But if you're not even going to bother acknowledging what I wrote, do feel free to leave me alone. Fischbol (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is substantial. It is not needed or wanted and there is no consensus for it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the List of B-side compilation albums and chose 25 at random that noted where each individual track was from. Here they are, grouped by how this information was presented:

Seperate column in Track listing template

The Masterplan (album)

Hullabaloo Soundtrack

Best of the 'B' Sides

Dead in the Boot

Pisces Iscariot

Recordings (album)

The Bird and the Bee Sides

Navigation: The OMD B-Sides

Somewhere else within Track listing template

The B-Side Collection

Garage Inc.

B-Side Babies

Next to each track in a standard list

Lost Dogs (album)

Building Nothing Out of Something

B-Sides & Rarities (Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds album)

Lost Songs (Anberlin album)

Seperate Song Origin section

G-Sides

The Destroyed Room: B-Sides and Rarities

Retro Active

Complete 'B' Sides

The majority (14 out of 25) of these articles were organized the same way I organized Useless Trinkets. The vast majority (21 out of 25) do not use the multi-section layout Useless Trinkets previously had.

There's your fucking consensus. Leave my edits alone and stop wasting my time. Fischbol (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus that all articles are supposed to use {{track listing}} and there is consensus that several styles are acceptable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you have done this again. Please undo edits to both articles per the above and the fact that you should not unilaterally change acceptable styles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look; I get it. I get that you see the separate Song Origins section as an acceptable style, and I get why just changing styles for the sake of it isn't a good idea. But I really think these specific edits are substantial to the quality and navigability of the articles, regardless of my personal opinions.

If you could find someone else to weigh in on this, that would be appreciated, because I told you in my first message why I think the changes are substantial and your responses haven't addressed them at all.

(For the record, I finished my most recent article edit before I saw your message and don't have any more planned, so it's not like I'm actively disregarding you) Fischbol (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good faith approach would be to revert yourself and seek consensus for your changes not to go back to a status quo that's existed for 20 years and which you know is perfectly acceptable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very telling to me how you still have not given a single reason why my change was not "significant". Here's the deal: if you--or anyone else you care to rope in--care to give me a reason why changing the layout of the article by removing a redundant and unnecessary section dose not count as "significant", I'll revert it and we can continue discussing the issue from that point. If you continue to repeat yourself and cite random project pages that only tangentially address your points, I will not.

You see this as a style change that would require further consensus, I do not. As the one reviewing my edit, the burden of proof is on you to justify your point of view. So far, you have made the following justifications:

"It is not needed or wanted"
[end of list]

If you think of any more, let me know Fischbol (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall writing that it wasn't significant: it is and should be undone. The burden of proof is on you to change things. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you refusing to revert yourself? If so, I will have to escalate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I'm desperate to hear literally anyone else tell me about this issue Fischbol (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fischbol. Please use kind language and assume good faith between editors. While this may true for these articles, other articles are not the same. For a substantial change like this, where you have an editor who has consensus against it, it's a good thing to self-revert your change and open at WP:RfC about it. Please reflect on the statement made by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee: "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 22:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about the language; you're right: it was uncalled for.

I think I've found the confusion. The way I read MOS:VAR, I thought it meant that style changes only needed pre-obtained consensus and discussion when there wasn't a "substantial reason" for the change being made and the change was just to a style people felt was more appropriate. Reading it again, I realize it probably means that style changes without a "substantial reason" are never acceptable, and any "substantial" changes have to be discussed enough to reach consensus beforehand.

With that said, I am going to revert my edits and post a question on whether my edit contains a "substantial" enough reason to switch styles to Useless Trinkets' talk page. If I don't get any justification why my edit doesn't have a "substantial reason" to change styles, I'll un-revert it, and if someone I do find anyone with reasons to disagree, I'll wait until we come to some agreement so we'll have consensus. Fischbol (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Since you already reverted the edit and Justin already started a thread on the talk page, I'll just jump in there) Fischbol (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should create a new thread for the RfC and follow the procedures at WP:RfC. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should remain as the option before you edited when you have "No consensus" on the RfC. So if I change Foobar to Barfoo and there is no consensus, it remains Foobar not Barfoo. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]