This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Optical disc packaging article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Digipak was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 May 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Optical disc packaging. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | On 2 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to List of optical disc packaging formats. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
The image showing the "discwheel" has the company's website address and phone number on it; surely this is advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.228.141 ( talk) 22:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention the storage item that looks like an album, it is called either CD Storage Binder or CD Storage Book or CD Nylon Wallet ( Nylon CD Wallet) — Ark25 ( talk) 13:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Steelbook redirects here, but there is no mention of it on the page. Peter Ward ( talk) 11:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
This first question leads into the more relevant second question. If you use a two-disc case to ship a single-disc, do you put that disc on the right or on the left? (On the right, it would be the first thing that the user sees when opening up the case.) Secondly, if you use a two-disc case for two discs labeled Vol. 1 & Vol. 2, would you still put the first disc on the right? If so, then again, disc 1 would be the first thing a user sees when opening the case. But it seems peculiar to insert them right to left, instead of the U.S. standard of left to right. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host ( talk) 19:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
There was a revised version of the polystyrene CD jewel box called StrongBOX (or Strong BOX) whose main difference was a change to the hinges to make them wider/thicker with a box section to prevent them from snapping off like the standard case hinges. All four corners were slightly rounded to improve damage resistance if dropped on a corner. But being made of polystyrene they still had the same issues with the lid and back cracking if crushed, such as by being sat on. Allsop now makes a slim case they call Strongbox, which is made of some plastic other than polystyrene. Aside from the type of plastic the design is entirely conventional and no relation to the other design. Bizzybody ( talk) 09:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky ( talk) 05:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Optical disc packaging →
List of optical disc packaging formats – This is a listicle: there is no underlying subject here of encyclopedic note. Instead this is simply a collection of different examples, unrelated to one another except by that single link.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk) 22:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. –
Hilst
[talk]
23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Hilst
[talk]
23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Hilst
[talk]
23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)We now have an editor reverting the removal of completely unsourced material under the guise of article improvement. This will not stand. This is an article full of accumulated crap, more suited to someone's blog than an encyclopedia. The inclusion of unsubstantiated material in the long term is not even a point of discussion. I will be fixing this again unless FMSky ( talk · contribs) actually bothers to justify the inclusion of all this original research by adding the required citations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 17:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Do you have anything to contribute on the merits of the content being discussed, or just additional personal commentary? Your very first contribution to this discussion was to demand editors "back off" from someone who hasn't even replied yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 08:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Right, so basically the current state is that a bunch of unsourced trivia was removed, thus making this article somewhat more coherent, and then it was all re-added without discussion. In the two weeks since this was questioned, nobody is prepared to defend that. So let's be rid of it again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 08:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
~ Kvng ( talk) 21:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Optical disc packaging article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Digipak was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 May 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Optical disc packaging. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | On 2 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to List of optical disc packaging formats. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
The image showing the "discwheel" has the company's website address and phone number on it; surely this is advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.228.141 ( talk) 22:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention the storage item that looks like an album, it is called either CD Storage Binder or CD Storage Book or CD Nylon Wallet ( Nylon CD Wallet) — Ark25 ( talk) 13:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Steelbook redirects here, but there is no mention of it on the page. Peter Ward ( talk) 11:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
This first question leads into the more relevant second question. If you use a two-disc case to ship a single-disc, do you put that disc on the right or on the left? (On the right, it would be the first thing that the user sees when opening up the case.) Secondly, if you use a two-disc case for two discs labeled Vol. 1 & Vol. 2, would you still put the first disc on the right? If so, then again, disc 1 would be the first thing a user sees when opening the case. But it seems peculiar to insert them right to left, instead of the U.S. standard of left to right. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host ( talk) 19:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
There was a revised version of the polystyrene CD jewel box called StrongBOX (or Strong BOX) whose main difference was a change to the hinges to make them wider/thicker with a box section to prevent them from snapping off like the standard case hinges. All four corners were slightly rounded to improve damage resistance if dropped on a corner. But being made of polystyrene they still had the same issues with the lid and back cracking if crushed, such as by being sat on. Allsop now makes a slim case they call Strongbox, which is made of some plastic other than polystyrene. Aside from the type of plastic the design is entirely conventional and no relation to the other design. Bizzybody ( talk) 09:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky ( talk) 05:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Optical disc packaging →
List of optical disc packaging formats – This is a listicle: there is no underlying subject here of encyclopedic note. Instead this is simply a collection of different examples, unrelated to one another except by that single link.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk) 22:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. –
Hilst
[talk]
23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Hilst
[talk]
23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Hilst
[talk]
23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)We now have an editor reverting the removal of completely unsourced material under the guise of article improvement. This will not stand. This is an article full of accumulated crap, more suited to someone's blog than an encyclopedia. The inclusion of unsubstantiated material in the long term is not even a point of discussion. I will be fixing this again unless FMSky ( talk · contribs) actually bothers to justify the inclusion of all this original research by adding the required citations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 17:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Do you have anything to contribute on the merits of the content being discussed, or just additional personal commentary? Your very first contribution to this discussion was to demand editors "back off" from someone who hasn't even replied yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 08:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Right, so basically the current state is that a bunch of unsourced trivia was removed, thus making this article somewhat more coherent, and then it was all re-added without discussion. In the two weeks since this was questioned, nobody is prepared to defend that. So let's be rid of it again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 08:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
~ Kvng ( talk) 21:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material.