User:The Haunted Angel/Commas vs. Linebreaks

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".

General information

I borrowed this from Twsx's sub page, as it sums up the general information here - I'm sure he won't mind, and I give him my thanks

There is no consensus.
- Therefore, every accusation of breaking WP:CON is irrelevant.
- Since there is no consensus, there is no line to be drawn about "what is right".
  - As well, as there is no consensus, WP:NPOV is not violated.
- Community discussion of the matter seems to have in the past resulted in noticeable favour of comma separated lists.
  - While the number of people in favour of line breaks seems to be significantly higher, there is a lack of valid arguments promoting them, and consensus is not reached through a vote.
  - This again shows; The discussion is far from consensus (if there ever can be one), so the result of all the previous discussions is irrelevant, for both sides.
- Accusing people of breaking policies which they have not broken, especially if the accusant is doing the very same, is very rude.
The fact that some pages have had line break separated lists most of the time in the past, has zero relevance.
None of this has anything to do with vandalism, even if some editors (of both sides) want to stamp it as such.
Bottom line: Both "parties" are in the very same position.
- Accusing someone who promoted the other version of breaking policy is mediocre, as the agrument can be returned 1:1.
- Both parties are not violating any policies and "playing" in a gray area.
- WP:3RR applies to everyone involved. The difference is, how aggressive someone behaves with the reverting.

My neutral argument

Some of the above I may or may not agree with, but this is a great way to start. Just for the record, I am personally in favour of line breaks, although I won't be drawn into the edit war myself; Twsx may noticed I recently reverted one of his edits in this war, but that was because it seemed to me he was using his sub page as consensus. Apparently he wasn't, and he was just his argument in the matter, but I will still stay out of this initially.

~~Try to be careful how valiantly you defend the articles, Navnløs; Twsx did raise the point of WP:OWN.~~I have removed this comment myself after Navnløs pointed out that the first case of WP:OWN was accused to Twsx; it is possible that either they are both are in breach of the rule, or neither are

Twsx, I had to actually search a fair bit to find an article where commas were used, and you seem to acknowledge that the line breaks are in the vast majority. This by no means indicates that it is correct, but do you change other articles when you see them, or is it just Amon Amarth? Are you prepared to change the others? Or will this discussion just come down to the Amon Amarth article?

Navnløs, are you prepared to find other articles where commas are used and change them? Or will this also become just a discussion for Amon Amarth?

Navnløs, can you argue against this section?

Both parties please see this, although I doubt it's telling either of you anything you haven't already seen.

I may add more "neutral" arguments later, but for now, this will do.

Debate

This is where I would ask both parties to debate their points, and to try to reach an agreement on what should be done. I would like the decision to be about their own MoS for all band articles, but I doubt it will expand past Amon Amarth. Again, this isn't here for you to argue senselessly, but to reach an agreement to stop this edit war. Please remember WP:CIVIL! I'd prefer it be done here on this front page to avoid confusion, rather than on the talk page; begin.

This has already been hashed out. We came up with the armistice so that people would leave all genre delimiters in articles alone, whether they are comma breaks or line breaks. This has pretty much worked (except for the occasional user like Twsx) but it seems to be falling apart. People are forgetting why the armistice was put into effect in the first place and the road ahead looks like a rocky one, where the genre delimiter edit war may continue. I want to point it out, though, that I am not the one edit warring on Amon Amarth or any other page. I am keeping to the armistice. I keep pages as they were when the armistice was put into effect. If a page has line breaks, it stays that way...if a page has comma breaks, it stays that way. I am not instituting POV, but only want to keep the peace. However, users such as Twsx and now Funeral don't seem to get it. They want what they want, and they want it now, the rest of us be damned. I would report all of them except I can't. At WP:ANI they think the genre delimiter debate is a laughing matter and basically crap. They will do nothing if I report those users for edit warring and breaking the armistice on genre delimiters. So it comes to this: The armistice is breaking down and sooner or later it will be time for the respective groups to take their battle postions, so to speak. I can do nothing about this. It is not up to me, because I am not the "wrong" person here. I wanted to keep the peace. I'm not saying I'm perfect, in the past I have edit warred and was blocked twice because of this on the Megadeth and Iron Maiden page. I tried to put that behind me and do the right thing. It's not working out so well. Do I like line breaks more and think they're better? Yes. But I would have kept to the armistice so long as others would have, but that's falling apart. There's not much that can be done since the genre delimiter debate has been argued before and no conclusive results were to be had, so the different sides rage on. Why do people want to start using comma breaks now when line breaks have been used since the beginning of wikipedia and worked fine? I don't know and don't presume to know. I think comma breaks violate WP:KISS because of the whole nowrap issue. Well, I could go on about what I think, but it doesn't help. neither side will see the light and since no solution is seen, the armistice will break down. The war will begin again. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 04:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, before I say some general stuff and reply to Navnlos' comment here, let me respond to your questions/comments:

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.

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.

Twsx, I had to actually search a fair bit to find an article where commas were used, and you seem to acknowledge that the line breaks are in the vast majority. This by no means indicates that it is correct, but do you change other articles when you see them, or is it just Amon Amarth? Are you prepared to change the others? Or will this discussion just come down to the Amon Amarth article?

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).

Both parties please see this, although I doubt it's telling either of you anything you haven't already seen.

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)

I had my doubts to begin with that this would work - but if there's a chance that this edit war can be stopped, I will do what I can to help stop it. Navlos, have you an argument back? I have noticed, by the way, another major article that uses commas, that being Cannibal Corpse. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as Navlos said, Iron Maiden, also. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:34, 2 February 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I will keep changing things if they inprove the article whenever I get across them.

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.

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.

I echo these sentiments. This is an issue between many people.

Note: The Cannibal Corpse page did not have comma breaks, someone changed that and I have changed it back. MORE IMPORTANTLY I need to respond to this: Try to be careful how valiantly you defend the articles, Navnløs; Twsx did raise the point of WP:OWN. That is total CRAP. I was the one who raised WP:OWN as an issue against Twsx, quite a while ago at ANI. They said that it was too hard to prove. No way can he use that against me and no way am I breaking that rule. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I did revert your edit when you removed my comment, but upon reading the final part of your last response, I have decided to strike it out with a comment; however, I ask you not to edit my posts. If there is something you disagree with what I have said, please just comment on it as you did at the end of your last reply. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sorry. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Flip-flopped, that is very cute. :) Though I must note that I have never opposed the statement that the larger amount of pages use line breaks. I actually have a mention of that on my argument page, as well as in some discussions I'm sure. Other than that, I can't add anything to this discussion at this point, as everything answer itself or is already answered. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 20:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. Y'know Twsx, if you took the time I bet you'd find we have a lot more in common than we don't. However, that still doesn't solve the problem we are in. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think i have said so a couple of weeks/months ago. I remember to have also asked you if you were interested in a more direct way of communication like IRC or messenger to settle things, but you decided to ignore me and start insulting me instead. :D ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, the edit war still continues, but there has been no attempt to comprimise; what was the style that was used when the latest rules for the infobox layout came into effect? ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)