It came to my attention a while ago that there was a slight disagreement about whether commas or line breaks should be used in the genre section of a band info box. However, I have since realised that "slight disagreement" is the understatement of this still young millennium. The article in question where the edit war is taking place is Amon Amarth, and the people edit warring are Navnløs and Twsx. The former is in support of line breaks, and the latter in support of commas. Now, I'm not certain what the official procedure would be, as there is no rule as to whether line breaks or commas are correct, as they both are, so I decided to set up this sub page to help try to end the edit war. Both users have set up their sub pages, which can be seen here (Twsx) and here (Navnløs); but I think that the discussion should take place here, as it is somewhat "neutral ground".
Okay, before I say some general stuff and reply to Navnlos' comment here, let me respond to your questions/comments:
Well, officially the issue should be taken to the appropriate project or MoS talk pages, be discussed, and a policy be set as a result of this discussion. If no consensus can be reached, no rule is made. This is exactly what happened.
I do change more articles than just the one you mentioned, yes, both of us do. I do it when I notice an article, where line breaks in infoboxes are wasting space and the change to commas will both improve that, and still look good (which is not always the case, i.e. in some articles ir will not improve the issue, or it will look bad which is often the case if references are used within the infobox).
Already saw it, and agree with it. There are many cases where changing to commas does not improve the quality of the infobox. Obviously, I do not change those articles. I have yet to see the same rationality from Navnlos.
About Navnlos' comment, above this one.. well.. not much I can say which has not already been said. Navnlos decides to hide behind the armistice to justify changing articles to the version he prefers. It is comfortable to say "No, i'm not edit warring, I am only keeping things as they were when some people agreed not to edit anything" when the vast majority of articles were in the state you preferred. It's all too easy; Because there was an unofficial community proposal, it is ok for him to revert anything people do. It frees him from the boundaries of policy. Or doesn't it? Then yet again, you say you are the innocent angel in this "battle" and I am the uber-evil breaker of any policy there is, yet you do not report me to the administrators noticeboard. The reason why your previous attempts were dismissed, by the way, is that the people who take care of reports on AN/I, are experienced editors, who see through your cloak of accusations pointed in only one direction, and because it really is a silly issue. It is, however, very interesting that you so clearly point out that previous discussions were inconclusive, whereas you said less thant 24 hours earlier that I was breaking WP:CON. So, in the end, I do not see this going anywhere until either one side happens to "retreat" or one version happens to find acceptance in policy (which is what I am hoping for, although not pushing it, and is already happening). The status quo is pro line-breaks. The discussion is pro commas, yet too heated and bloated to extract any consensus. I will keep changing things if they inprove the article whenever I get across them. Navnlos will keep reverting me as fast as he can. Let's see who gets tired first. I might. ~ | twsx | talk cont | ~ 09:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I almost forgot: Although I do doubt that this will resolve the matter (also as this is not only an issue between me and Navnlos), I truely appreciate your effort of making another attempt to resolve the issue. ~ | twsx | talk cont | ~ 09:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact I do have quite a few arguements back, lest you believe Twsx's lies. I will respond in a couple hours, though, as I am busy at college. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I cannot even believe this misinformation. I will show that his argument has no merit point-by-point.
My response to this first part is: I do not hide behind the armistice to justify what I do. Nor do I change pages to the version I prefer. What I do is make sure pages (both with comma breaks or line breaks) stay the way they were during the armistice, as agreed to. The fact that the "vast majority" or articles had line breaks at the time is simply not my problem and there is nothing I can do about that. I should also point out that many of us line breakers pointed out that "line breaks are in the majority" as an argument to make all genre delimiters line breaks. At that time comma breakers responded by saying "that's not true, many articles have comma breaks!" So which is it? Comma breakers liked to say that we line breakers were the minority. Now Twsx says "there's way more line breaks in articles!" which makes me think he is only saying that because the situation is now against him. Flip-flopping so to speak. Like I said, though, whether there are more line breaks or more comma breaks in articles, I have no idea, but i would like to keep them as they were during the armistice to keep the peace.
Secondly: I never said I was good or that you were evil. I simply said you choose not to follow the armistice on a few articles which may result in a breaking down of the system and eventually to genre delimiter wars. Second, that is not the reason my reports to ANI about you were dismissed. They were twice dismissed simply because those editors at ANI said that they did not care and that this was a trivial issue and they would not act either way. They agreed with Twsx that is was a silly issue. As for that last sentence I have to admit I don't quite understand what you're saying. I do indeed say that you are breaking WP:CON in that a group of editors involved in the delimiter edit "wars" came together and made an "armistice" so that people wouldn't keep fighting about delimiters. The armistice is not a permanenet solution (and I wish one were more forthcoming) but it was what was agreed upon at the time to stop the problem of people edit warring. It is still in effect (though breaking down over time it seems) but you consistently break it and edit war on the Amon Amarth and Dissection page.
You keep saying that you are only changing genre delimiters to make articles better (by looks or w/e you judge better). First, this is blatant WP:POV. Second, you just admitted that you are not following the armistice and don't care to work with other editors on this issue. As for you saying that I will keep reverting you as fast as I can, I will only say that I do not stalk you or follow your edits and that the only edits I revert by you are the ones to Amon Amarth and Dissection. And yes, I will continue to revert your genre delimiter changes to those pages. I also have to point out to Haunted Angel that I am not the only one reverting his changed to those two pages. If you take a look at the history of each page he has been reverted many times in the past by others for changing genre delimiters. Even recently he was reverted on the Dissection page for doing the same by another user. I know this is my own POV, but when you say you are making those articles look better I have to seriously disagree. Especially with the Dissection page. What looks better? This(Twsx's way) or this(the line break way). I mean, for one, with comma breaks it breaks up the genres on the lines and makes that whole section look totally fucked up, whereas with line breaks it's not and it's easy to read all the genres. That's my POV, though.
I echo these sentiments. This is an issue between many people.
It came to my attention a while ago that there was a slight disagreement about whether commas or line breaks should be used in the genre section of a band info box. However, I have since realised that "slight disagreement" is the understatement of this still young millennium. The article in question where the edit war is taking place is Amon Amarth, and the people edit warring are Navnløs and Twsx. The former is in support of line breaks, and the latter in support of commas. Now, I'm not certain what the official procedure would be, as there is no rule as to whether line breaks or commas are correct, as they both are, so I decided to set up this sub page to help try to end the edit war. Both users have set up their sub pages, which can be seen here (Twsx) and here (Navnløs); but I think that the discussion should take place here, as it is somewhat "neutral ground".
Okay, before I say some general stuff and reply to Navnlos' comment here, let me respond to your questions/comments:
Well, officially the issue should be taken to the appropriate project or MoS talk pages, be discussed, and a policy be set as a result of this discussion. If no consensus can be reached, no rule is made. This is exactly what happened.
I do change more articles than just the one you mentioned, yes, both of us do. I do it when I notice an article, where line breaks in infoboxes are wasting space and the change to commas will both improve that, and still look good (which is not always the case, i.e. in some articles ir will not improve the issue, or it will look bad which is often the case if references are used within the infobox).
Already saw it, and agree with it. There are many cases where changing to commas does not improve the quality of the infobox. Obviously, I do not change those articles. I have yet to see the same rationality from Navnlos.
About Navnlos' comment, above this one.. well.. not much I can say which has not already been said. Navnlos decides to hide behind the armistice to justify changing articles to the version he prefers. It is comfortable to say "No, i'm not edit warring, I am only keeping things as they were when some people agreed not to edit anything" when the vast majority of articles were in the state you preferred. It's all too easy; Because there was an unofficial community proposal, it is ok for him to revert anything people do. It frees him from the boundaries of policy. Or doesn't it? Then yet again, you say you are the innocent angel in this "battle" and I am the uber-evil breaker of any policy there is, yet you do not report me to the administrators noticeboard. The reason why your previous attempts were dismissed, by the way, is that the people who take care of reports on AN/I, are experienced editors, who see through your cloak of accusations pointed in only one direction, and because it really is a silly issue. It is, however, very interesting that you so clearly point out that previous discussions were inconclusive, whereas you said less thant 24 hours earlier that I was breaking WP:CON. So, in the end, I do not see this going anywhere until either one side happens to "retreat" or one version happens to find acceptance in policy (which is what I am hoping for, although not pushing it, and is already happening). The status quo is pro line-breaks. The discussion is pro commas, yet too heated and bloated to extract any consensus. I will keep changing things if they inprove the article whenever I get across them. Navnlos will keep reverting me as fast as he can. Let's see who gets tired first. I might. ~ | twsx | talk cont | ~ 09:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I almost forgot: Although I do doubt that this will resolve the matter (also as this is not only an issue between me and Navnlos), I truely appreciate your effort of making another attempt to resolve the issue. ~ | twsx | talk cont | ~ 09:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact I do have quite a few arguements back, lest you believe Twsx's lies. I will respond in a couple hours, though, as I am busy at college. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I cannot even believe this misinformation. I will show that his argument has no merit point-by-point.
My response to this first part is: I do not hide behind the armistice to justify what I do. Nor do I change pages to the version I prefer. What I do is make sure pages (both with comma breaks or line breaks) stay the way they were during the armistice, as agreed to. The fact that the "vast majority" or articles had line breaks at the time is simply not my problem and there is nothing I can do about that. I should also point out that many of us line breakers pointed out that "line breaks are in the majority" as an argument to make all genre delimiters line breaks. At that time comma breakers responded by saying "that's not true, many articles have comma breaks!" So which is it? Comma breakers liked to say that we line breakers were the minority. Now Twsx says "there's way more line breaks in articles!" which makes me think he is only saying that because the situation is now against him. Flip-flopping so to speak. Like I said, though, whether there are more line breaks or more comma breaks in articles, I have no idea, but i would like to keep them as they were during the armistice to keep the peace.
Secondly: I never said I was good or that you were evil. I simply said you choose not to follow the armistice on a few articles which may result in a breaking down of the system and eventually to genre delimiter wars. Second, that is not the reason my reports to ANI about you were dismissed. They were twice dismissed simply because those editors at ANI said that they did not care and that this was a trivial issue and they would not act either way. They agreed with Twsx that is was a silly issue. As for that last sentence I have to admit I don't quite understand what you're saying. I do indeed say that you are breaking WP:CON in that a group of editors involved in the delimiter edit "wars" came together and made an "armistice" so that people wouldn't keep fighting about delimiters. The armistice is not a permanenet solution (and I wish one were more forthcoming) but it was what was agreed upon at the time to stop the problem of people edit warring. It is still in effect (though breaking down over time it seems) but you consistently break it and edit war on the Amon Amarth and Dissection page.
You keep saying that you are only changing genre delimiters to make articles better (by looks or w/e you judge better). First, this is blatant WP:POV. Second, you just admitted that you are not following the armistice and don't care to work with other editors on this issue. As for you saying that I will keep reverting you as fast as I can, I will only say that I do not stalk you or follow your edits and that the only edits I revert by you are the ones to Amon Amarth and Dissection. And yes, I will continue to revert your genre delimiter changes to those pages. I also have to point out to Haunted Angel that I am not the only one reverting his changed to those two pages. If you take a look at the history of each page he has been reverted many times in the past by others for changing genre delimiters. Even recently he was reverted on the Dissection page for doing the same by another user. I know this is my own POV, but when you say you are making those articles look better I have to seriously disagree. Especially with the Dissection page. What looks better? This(Twsx's way) or this(the line break way). I mean, for one, with comma breaks it breaks up the genres on the lines and makes that whole section look totally fucked up, whereas with line breaks it's not and it's easy to read all the genres. That's my POV, though.
I echo these sentiments. This is an issue between many people.