This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I'm near my wits end with this discussion, because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Proponents and opponents of the field have been regurgitating the same bit of info ad nauseum for the past few days; the page is 300kb, for <expletive> sake. What I want to ask is
In any case, I have a lot of schoolwork piling up, and midterms in a week, so my participation in this may be minimal. I can only hope people who have the time can fight the good fight. Peace out, for now. Orane (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to draft a guideline for dealing with genres on music articles in the next few days. My intention is to hopefully address most if not all of the concerns people against the infobox genre field have. We could discuss it and build consensus to accept it (and the genre fields) or reject it. That should at least give us all a direction, instead of rehashing the same debates with each other. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
So to make sure I don't waste the next few days of my time, does anyone object to me crafting a genre guideline for us to discuss and possibly implement, or are we all cool with it? WesleyDodds ( talk) 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is now more or less unreadable. It's been chaotic. WesleyDodds should read WP:Process is important. Without a process it's impossible to have an outcome when a lot of people are involved. If you still want to take an initiative - and you are willing to act as a neutral chair rather than as a protagonist - you should start a proper centralized discussion. See how to do it here: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. You can then draft your proposals. However it has to be laid out properly, in clear, neutral English allowing for (and encouraging) a range of differing responses. (Some self-discipline is required). If you don't want to be a neutral chair (which is fine) you should get someone else to start and run the centralized discussion. -- Klein zach 02:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, my proposal will proabably take me until the weekend to finish. Once I started considering the topic of genres beyond the infoboxes and started tackling the lead sections for different sorts of articles, things got complicated. Here's hoping my brain doesn't melt while I try to figure this all out. Sorry about the delays. WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
In answer to the question posed in the previous section header, I say we do three things:
1. Revert the removal of the genre field in the artist and album infoboxes. Why? Because adequate consensus was not reached. Take a look at the lead paragraph on WP:Consensus:"Consensus is part of a range of policies on how editors work with others, and part of the Fourth pillar of Wikipedia code of conduct. Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages." Notice the sentences in bold. A seven person consensus (with one opposing) is not nearly enough to rightly determine a change to a guideline or template. For a consensus to occur, there must be adequate exposure to the community; there wasn't.
2. Start a new discussion on the issue of removing the genre field, and if an adequate consensus is reached to remove the field, then it shall be removed. If no consensus is reached within a set amount of time, the genres must be left intact. Also, this discussion must be widely publicized on artist/album/song related WikiProjects and maybe even on the main page. I am almost certain that, if adequately publicized, the new discussion will include many more viewers, and many more are needed in a discussion of a proposal to implement such a big change to thousands of articles.
3. Implement the removal when and if a consensus is reached to do so, and adequately notify the appropriate editing community of the decision. If there are editors that later disagree with the new implementation, they may start a new discussion and follow steps 2 and 3. Tim meh ! 15:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Having had this much discussion inlcuding enough feedback to actually make improvements to fix what is broken, starting all over again will be utterly infuriating for all parties involved. Even the most vocal of those editors demanding to have the genre field back in the infobox is content to re-instate it per Wesley Dodd's ideas. If the change is merely reverted and thus reinstate the genre field without any change to the guidance supporting it, I and many others would feel that we must then enforce WP:V individually across many thousands of pages it affects, rather like TTN enforces WP:V by mass action - this would end with no net profit - the encyclopedia looses the genres in the vast majority of cases anyway with little chance for improvement, left to proceed I believe the encyclopedia gets to re-instate the genre field and satisfy those who are unhappy with it's current state with guidance in place to improve the quality of the encyclopedia by treating the information correctly.-- Alf melmac 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Orane is correct. I do not oppose removing the genre field as long as it is done after proper consensus among the Wikipedia community is reached. The agreement between the original seven editors after a long discussion is not a consensus. There are two main problems with the original "consensus". First, this discussion was not widely publicized, if at all. I was not aware of it, and I do pay attention to these kinds of discussions. Almost every editor that has joined since the original "consensus" was made was not aware of the original discussion and so-called "consensus. Second, this non-publicized discussion ended in just seven editors agreeing to the proposal to remove the genre field. You must remember that a change this large effects thousands of individual articles, and it makes a huge impact on the Wikipedia community. Obviously, this is an ongoing discussion, and I propose that we set a certain amount of time (2 or 3 weeks) that we have to come up with a valid consensus to remove the genre field. If the consensus is not reached in that time, the field should be restored. Tim meh ! 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I am shocked by the removal of genre field from artist, album etc. infoboxes. This was not properly announced, so most editors, including myself, found it out when this terrible thing had already happend.
There are plenty of sources for any artist's genre. Like allmusic.com and other similiar sites.
Just because there are few edits wars involving editors who don't understand what reliable sources are, it does not mean we should get rid of this extremely helpful field. We Russians call it "using artillery to get rid of sparrows", but a better expression would probably be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
As can be easily seen, there are a lot of editors who are unsatisfied with such move. Thus I demand the resumption of this discussion. Netrat ( talk) 22:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Archive 6 on this page has one discussion. There is another here, and here, and here. It's mentioned here. Wiki-google search shows a few more where it is brought up inside other discussions as well. Fair Deal ( talk) 03:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I'm near my wits end with this discussion, because it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Proponents and opponents of the field have been regurgitating the same bit of info ad nauseum for the past few days; the page is 300kb, for <expletive> sake. What I want to ask is
In any case, I have a lot of schoolwork piling up, and midterms in a week, so my participation in this may be minimal. I can only hope people who have the time can fight the good fight. Peace out, for now. Orane (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to draft a guideline for dealing with genres on music articles in the next few days. My intention is to hopefully address most if not all of the concerns people against the infobox genre field have. We could discuss it and build consensus to accept it (and the genre fields) or reject it. That should at least give us all a direction, instead of rehashing the same debates with each other. WesleyDodds ( talk) 07:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
So to make sure I don't waste the next few days of my time, does anyone object to me crafting a genre guideline for us to discuss and possibly implement, or are we all cool with it? WesleyDodds ( talk) 01:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is now more or less unreadable. It's been chaotic. WesleyDodds should read WP:Process is important. Without a process it's impossible to have an outcome when a lot of people are involved. If you still want to take an initiative - and you are willing to act as a neutral chair rather than as a protagonist - you should start a proper centralized discussion. See how to do it here: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion. You can then draft your proposals. However it has to be laid out properly, in clear, neutral English allowing for (and encouraging) a range of differing responses. (Some self-discipline is required). If you don't want to be a neutral chair (which is fine) you should get someone else to start and run the centralized discussion. -- Klein zach 02:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, my proposal will proabably take me until the weekend to finish. Once I started considering the topic of genres beyond the infoboxes and started tackling the lead sections for different sorts of articles, things got complicated. Here's hoping my brain doesn't melt while I try to figure this all out. Sorry about the delays. WesleyDodds ( talk) 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
In answer to the question posed in the previous section header, I say we do three things:
1. Revert the removal of the genre field in the artist and album infoboxes. Why? Because adequate consensus was not reached. Take a look at the lead paragraph on WP:Consensus:"Consensus is part of a range of policies on how editors work with others, and part of the Fourth pillar of Wikipedia code of conduct. Editors typically reach a consensus as a natural and inherent product of wiki-editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages." Notice the sentences in bold. A seven person consensus (with one opposing) is not nearly enough to rightly determine a change to a guideline or template. For a consensus to occur, there must be adequate exposure to the community; there wasn't.
2. Start a new discussion on the issue of removing the genre field, and if an adequate consensus is reached to remove the field, then it shall be removed. If no consensus is reached within a set amount of time, the genres must be left intact. Also, this discussion must be widely publicized on artist/album/song related WikiProjects and maybe even on the main page. I am almost certain that, if adequately publicized, the new discussion will include many more viewers, and many more are needed in a discussion of a proposal to implement such a big change to thousands of articles.
3. Implement the removal when and if a consensus is reached to do so, and adequately notify the appropriate editing community of the decision. If there are editors that later disagree with the new implementation, they may start a new discussion and follow steps 2 and 3. Tim meh ! 15:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Having had this much discussion inlcuding enough feedback to actually make improvements to fix what is broken, starting all over again will be utterly infuriating for all parties involved. Even the most vocal of those editors demanding to have the genre field back in the infobox is content to re-instate it per Wesley Dodd's ideas. If the change is merely reverted and thus reinstate the genre field without any change to the guidance supporting it, I and many others would feel that we must then enforce WP:V individually across many thousands of pages it affects, rather like TTN enforces WP:V by mass action - this would end with no net profit - the encyclopedia looses the genres in the vast majority of cases anyway with little chance for improvement, left to proceed I believe the encyclopedia gets to re-instate the genre field and satisfy those who are unhappy with it's current state with guidance in place to improve the quality of the encyclopedia by treating the information correctly.-- Alf melmac 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Orane is correct. I do not oppose removing the genre field as long as it is done after proper consensus among the Wikipedia community is reached. The agreement between the original seven editors after a long discussion is not a consensus. There are two main problems with the original "consensus". First, this discussion was not widely publicized, if at all. I was not aware of it, and I do pay attention to these kinds of discussions. Almost every editor that has joined since the original "consensus" was made was not aware of the original discussion and so-called "consensus. Second, this non-publicized discussion ended in just seven editors agreeing to the proposal to remove the genre field. You must remember that a change this large effects thousands of individual articles, and it makes a huge impact on the Wikipedia community. Obviously, this is an ongoing discussion, and I propose that we set a certain amount of time (2 or 3 weeks) that we have to come up with a valid consensus to remove the genre field. If the consensus is not reached in that time, the field should be restored. Tim meh ! 22:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I am shocked by the removal of genre field from artist, album etc. infoboxes. This was not properly announced, so most editors, including myself, found it out when this terrible thing had already happend.
There are plenty of sources for any artist's genre. Like allmusic.com and other similiar sites.
Just because there are few edits wars involving editors who don't understand what reliable sources are, it does not mean we should get rid of this extremely helpful field. We Russians call it "using artillery to get rid of sparrows", but a better expression would probably be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
As can be easily seen, there are a lot of editors who are unsatisfied with such move. Thus I demand the resumption of this discussion. Netrat ( talk) 22:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Archive 6 on this page has one discussion. There is another here, and here, and here. It's mentioned here. Wiki-google search shows a few more where it is brought up inside other discussions as well. Fair Deal ( talk) 03:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)