Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:15, 7 March 2014

This is Lesser Cartographies's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

A page you started (The News Letter of the LXIVmos) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The News Letter of the LXIVmos, Lesser Cartographies!

Misplaced Pages editor Slashme just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Fascinating article!

To reply, leave a comment on Slashme's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Harp Twins

BG White has repeatedly violated an understanding that you have helped broker. Instead of edit warring both myself and Dontreader were to discuss any changes to the Camille and Kennerly Kitt page with yourself and changes would be made by you. The agreement did not include Dontreader whining to BG White and BG White kowtowing to his every whim. BG White has been repeatedly introducing linkspam into said page. attempt to raise the issue with BG White was met by silence. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Insulting someone usually leads to silence. Agreement was to not to edit the page and instead to discuss on my or Lesser's talk page. You already said you don't have to abide by that. Dontreader has been coming to both Lesser and me as per the agreement. He has not edited the page. I've have told Dontreader no and yes to things he has proposed. Links in question are sourcing that there was an album released and when it was released. This is permitted and unfortunately, Amazon iTunes seems to be the ones people choose. This is why I added it. I already asked if you had a better link and so far have been ignored.

Remember, I issued you both warnings not to edit war over the Kitt page. I warned the next time I would block both of you. So far you have thrown the agreement out, not civilly discussed, reverted and thrown insults at every change.

Lesser has been on a Wikibreak for a bit. When he returns, if he want to decide to remove, keep or change links, that is fine by me. Bgwhite (talk) 06:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Duff, Bg: I'll take a look. Unlikely I'll decide anything for a least a day, probably two. Probably best to leave things alone until then. I'll be in touch. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Lesser Cartographies. This is a Featured Article, and it has several iTunes and Amazon links in the Release history section to support content. Please notify Duff about this. Unless he is willing to wage war (successfully) to remove "shop" links from every Featured and Good article on Misplaced Pages, there is absolutely no justification for him to insist on removing the CDBaby links from the Kitt page. Have a nice day... Dontreader (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Don: As to the Madonna article, this site is a far more reliable (and complete) source than amazon. As to justification for removing certain commercial links, I can think of several, but WP:LINKSTOAVOID is sufficient ("Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services"). Here's a better argument: if the information you're trying to cite can only be found on pages selling the product, that information probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.

Duff: I don't want to work with someone who yells "hypocrite" at the first (or second, or fifth) sign of a misunderstanding. Not only was that uncivil, it was counterproductive: you've removed any incentive for Bgw to come around to your point of view, and you've made me very reluctant to agree with you and be seen as rewarding your behavior. Your actions are making it more difficult for me to remove links that we both agree shouldn't be there. Please don't do that again.

Bgw: Thanks for stepping in during my absence. That was the right thing to do. Thanks for the "remove, keep or change links", and I'm happy to reciprocate. I think you've proposed the best solution: replace those links with better ones. Until I can find something better, I don't see any harm in leaving the article as-is.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Lesser Cartographies. However, although the Madonna site that you provided is more complete than Amazon or other shops, I fail to see why it is reliable after doing some research; that site is run by a Czech fan who doesn't even provide a full name, and using what appears to be a free blog service from the Czech Republic. I don't see why that information should be considered accurate or reliable (even if it might have correct information). From the Misplaced Pages article concerning links that should be avoided, we also read the following:

"Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria for people.)"

Honza is not a recognized authority, and this server seems intended for creating free blogs or personal pages. Also, from the quote "if the information you're trying to cite can only be found on pages selling the product, that information probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article." I must emphasize probably and I must remind you that multiple Featured Articles about music have shop links. Admittedly it's not an ideal situation. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To your first point: See

Wicke, Peter (2009). "Confessions on a dance floor: Das Lied als Industrieprodukt". In Leimgruber, Walter; Messerli, Alfred; Oehme, Karoline (eds.). Ewigi Liäbi: Singen bleibt populär. Germany: Waxmann/SVG. p. 92. ISBN 978-3-908122-85-2..

That looks like an impeccably recognized authority to me.

As to your second point: What percentage of featured articles have shop links? What percentage of those would be improved by citing reliable sources instead?

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've now replaced the cdbaby cites with a cite to the twins' home page. The fact that the albums exist and were released on such-and-such a date is uncontroversial enough to use a less-reliable source. That leaves the track listings uncited, which was (unspoken) issue all along, right? So I'm guessing that since nobody else (not even the twins themselves) has bothered to reproduce the track listings, our choices come down to (a) leave the material uncited, (b) remove the material, (c) restore the link spam, or (d) find a better cite. I have enquires in progress for (d), and until I see how those pan out we'll stick with (a). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Lesser Cartographies, what does that book and its author Peter Wicke have to do with the Czech guy Honza and his website? You said that website was much better, not a book.

Secondly, what matters is not the percentage of Featured Articles that have shop links. What matters is that there are Featured Articles with shop links. Would having different links be better? Yes, but that's the way it is currently. It's today's reality with Misplaced Pages. If you want to begin a crusade against the shop links, you have every right to do so. But until then, look, you said you saw no harm in keeping the Kitt article as it was, so why did you take out the links again, as Duff did? Dontreader (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

To your first point: you claimed that based on your "research", the madonnacollector website was not a recognized authority. It took me all of two google searches to find out that madonnacollector a recognized authority, and academics were the ones doing the recognizing. I didn't want you to have to take my word for it, so I provided the citation. As an aside, when someone goes to the trouble of giving you a citation, it's generally best to look it up before responding.

Now let's talk about citations for track listings. We have many, many examples of albums released by novelty cover bands. Here are a few examples. Let's see how they handle citing the track list.

• Lounge Against the Machine
• Nouvelle Vague (album)
• Ruin Jonny's Bar Mitzvah
• Hot & Spicy Beanburger
• A Hillbilly Tribute to AC/DC
• Turetsky Choir Art Group
• Attack of the Ten Masked Men
• Strings 'n' Stripes
• Soma (Mallavoodoo album)

Not one of these provide a citation to the track listing. That got me thinking as to why that might be. Could it be, perhaps, that the track listing of an album is similar to the table of contents in a book? That seems like a pretty solid comparison. We don't provide independent citations to tables of contents, and it looks like we don't provide independent citations for track listings, either.

Recall that the Madonna citation was for the release date. Well, we already have a non-shop-link cite for that, and that's what is now in the article.

So, I think we're done. Having looked at several other examples, the track listings can stay without any citation, and the release dates are cited sufficiently. We also got rid of the shop links. So I'm going to call this an unqualified success.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Lesser Cartographies, I'm sorry, but there is no way to reason with you. The Madonna link you provided was terrible. Why can't you accept that? It's one Czech guy with a collection of Madonna stuff who calls himself "Honza". No last name. And he asks for donations. Does that sound like a "reliable" source to you? A reader of a Misplaced Pages article is not supposed to have to perform two Google searches to verify that a link is reliable. You are simply cornering yourself. You should have admitted your mistake when I pointed it out to you.

And I could not care less about that list of bands that you provided. You cannot distract me, Lesser. I know two things:

1) After saying "Until I can find something better, I don't see any harm in leaving the article as-is.", you quickly changed it and replaced the links with a new link that DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CONTENT. Your attempts at obfuscation do not work with me. All you did was please Duff. Period.

2) Let me repeat this: THERE ARE FEATURED ARTICLES OF MUSIC THAT HAVE SHOP LINKS. So you cannot apply a different standard to the Kitt article. PERIOD. You have NO WAY to justify pleasing Duff this time. All you are doing is coming across as someone who thinks he's far superior to me intellectually, cannot admit his mistakes, and can fool me with cheap tricks. Period. Revert that edit and let an administrator replace Bgwhite for a while. You have lost whatever credibility you had. Dontreader (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your efforts in assessing a question at the Teahouse based on the merits of the topic... a good assessment and very valuable. Your feedback makes a difference. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)