Talk:Useless Trinkets: B-Sides, Soundtracks, Rarities and Unreleased 1996–2006

Review suggestion

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I have removed this link from professional reviews section. If any interested editor would like to examine the contents of the review I have linked to, and finds that it is beneficial to this Wikipedia page, please reinstate the link. Thank you. *Crawdaddy! (favorable) 2007
Asst. Editor, Crawdaddy! FenderRhodesScholar | Talk 22:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done Thanks. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit

I am under a WP:0RR and have requested another editor revert himself, but he has refused. Per MOS:VAR, MOS:RETAIN, and WP:ALBUMSTYLE, this article should have its previous track listing style restored. Please edit this article to undo the addition of {{track listing}}. See this thread. @Fischbol: who introduced this issue and refused to address it and furthermore claims that I need to get consensus for the article to be the way it was for almost 20 years instead of him needing consensus to change it (See MOS:VAR: "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.", WP:BRD, etc.). @Cowboygilbert: who was willing to make similar edits on a previous request. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done ... for now? Let's see how it plays out between the other editor on the issue. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 22:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Edit to switch Track listing format

Alright, now that I've figured out my mistake with MOS:VAR and agree with the two of you that reverting and moving the discussion to this talk page is the correct thing to do, now we can actually discuss the merits of my edit. Since there was plenty of confusion on both of our ends during the previous discussion, and in the interest of having all the relevant info in one place, I'll try to lay out my thoughts on the whole issue as clearly as I can: Alright, now that I've figured out my mistake with MOS:VAR and agree that reverting and moving the discussion to this talk page is the correct thing to do, now we can actually discuss the merits of my edit. Since there was plenty of confusion on both of our ends during the previous discussion, and in the interest of having all the relevant info in one place, I'll try to lay out my thoughts on the whole issue as clearly as I can:

• The purpose of my edit is to change the style of the "Track listing" section from a numbered list to the {{Track listing}} template for the express purpose of folding the "Origin of tracks" section into it to make each track line up much more clearly with their original release
• Justin argues that the old Track listing format should stay, citing MOS:VAR, MOS:RETAIN, and WP:ALBUMSTYLE. Let's break those down:
  • MOS:RETAIN concerns variants of the English language and does not apply to this situation in the slightest. I noted this in the past and was ignored.
  • WP:ALBUMSTYLE establishes that both numbered lists and the XX template are valid styles, saying: "A track listing should generally be formatted as a numbered list", and "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". This album clearly falls under the umbrella laid out by the second quote, but nothing in WP:ALBUMSTYLE says any one style is objectively correct.
  • MOS:VAR contains the crux of Justin's argument: "The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "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.""
• This leads us to the central question of this discussion: Does my proposed edit have a substantial enough reason behind it to clear the standard set by MOS:VAR? Let's find out:
  • Key to understanding this issue is figuring out what MOS:VAR means by "substantial reason". It cites three cases brought before the Arbitration Committee concerning this issue, from June 2005, November 2005, and February 2006. All three of these cases are about the same issue: users switching between BC/AD and BCE/CE formatted dates as a matter of preference, despite both formats being considered acceptable by the manual of style.
    • The Committee found in all three cases that switching between styles solely based on personal preference was against the rules and the users received either warnings or bans.
      • Comparisons were drawn to the difference in spelling between "color" and "colour" as an example of a similar abusive style change
    • Clearly the arbitration committee found style changes that just affect how something is spelled or which acronym is used to be abusive. They did not, however, give any examples of an acceptable style change.
  • Let's now bring this back closer to our situation. Justin brought up a previous incident where a user named BigChungusOnVinyl changed the track listing of an article from a numbered list to the {{Track listing}} format. This edit did not add any new information or change anything about the article's format other than the addition of a {{Track listing}} table.
    • Did Chungus' edit violate MOS:VAR? Justin clearly thought so, and looking at it now, I agree. The edit did not add any new information, nor did it even rearrange the existing information at all; the same info was still there, just configured slightly differently. I agree with Justin that there is no substantial reason for that style change to exist, therefore it was correctly reverted.
  • This brings us to the kicker: given that Chungus' edit was not substantial, how is my proposed edit any different? My answer: the removal of the "Origin of songs" section. This section currently sits below the Track listing section and lists out where each track on the compilation originally came from. My edit folds this info into the track list, rendering the entire section unnecessary. Even though no new information is added, the information in the article is rearranged so significantly that the structure of the article would be changed. This is the crux of my argument; I think the opportunity to remove an entire unnecessary section is substantial enough to warrant a style change.
    • Keep two things in mind: first, that the Arbitration Committee's examples of non-substantial style changes were a) changing between using BC/AD and BCE/CE to write dates purely based on preference, and b) changing between "color" and "colour" purely based on preference.
    • Second, that Chungus' edit did no more than change the spacing of information within an already-existing section, while my edit is removing an entire section and shortening the article nearly by half without losing any information
• To sum up: MOS:VAR states that "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". Under my interpretation of their use of the word "substantial", I believe that my edit meets that standard and should be published

We can now discuss the merit of my above argument. @Koavf: and @Cowboygilbert: should look this over and weigh in on my interpretation of the situation. If you two still disagree with me and can't change my mind, opening an RfC is probably our next step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fischbol (talk • contribs)

{{Ping}} only works if you sign your comments. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The template is not needed, as 1.) a track listing does not need to have every conceivable piece of info in it and 2.) even if you wanted to include the information about which album a particular track is from, you don't need the template to do it. There are plenty of album articles about compilation albums that have plain list styles with this information. If you want to include this in the existing track listing style, go ahead. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Fischbol (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)