Talk:M.I.U. Album

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Mel,

By inserting that timing style, it's not corresponding with the "record label" line in the info box and it throws it out of whack. Also, every other album has its timings set up that way. I just followed what was there since I didn't actually create these articles. If you feel strongly enough to change all of the articles' timing styles to reflect what you feel is right (there's at least 30), then be my guest. Just please make sure that the "record label" section isn't thrown off. Thanks for helping to improve the article. I appreciate it. PetSounds 17:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

1. Every other album doesn't have the timing set up that way; I've seen three different ways, and there are probably more (your way, my way, and the "mm:ss" way.
2. The Manual of style clearly warns against over-Wikilinking; to link "minute" and "second" in every album & single article is surely unnecessary.
3. I've left questions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and Template talk:Album infobox; if you want to join the debate, the former is the more important (as it concerns policy).
4. Note in any case that Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums isn't policy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of stoking the flame I offer this opinion. This way of notation xx:yy is, without doubt, so much better than including some abbreviated form of minutes and seconds which I don't much want to understand anyway, particularly not for piping's sake.

But. None of the other Beach Boys albums are like that. Where do we stop? Normally my opinion would be "Assume the person looking at this page knows nothing but wishes to know everything." By "nothing", I mean, various different short-hand ways of writing things. I mean everything we can see on that page. Though I've had nothing personally to do with the writing of the article since it was created, and though my personal opinion is that xx:yy is better, I've never seen another case in which it was used. Bobo. 18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact there are countless examples of albums using "mm:ss" (and the Singles template has been changed to reflect the better practice, though the Albums template is lagging behind; that (among other issues) is being discussed now). The main point is that the min/sec style goes against the MoS, both in itself (the abbreviations are non-standard, and the links are unnecessary) and in that it's inconsistent with the style used for track timings. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This content dispute seems to have been going on for quite some time, perhaps somebody should request comments? It seems that the consensus is that the "mm:ss" format is preferred, but that there should be consistency amongst the Beach Boy album articles. As such, I've changed all the album articles to the "mm:ss" format. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not a content dispute, really. I've edited the style in line with the MoS, and various people have wholesale reverted (including such things as insisting on the genre being Rock, as well as linking pointless things like Fall and names of months). It's esentially low-level vandalism, as it violates Wikipedia policy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I saw the edits with links to fall and whatnot, as well as the reversions, but none of this is vandalism. The manual of style, as it admits in its introduction, is a style guide and does not apply in all situations. Personally, I believe it's correct in this instance, but claiming that people are vandalising the article because they are trying to use a different style is going a bit far. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I said "low-level vandalism". Moreover, while editors don't have to write in accordance with the guide, they are also expected not to revert those who do (and the notice at the top of the manual says clearly: "Wikipedia articles should heed these rules"). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Violations of the style guide are not vandalism and should not be reverted as vandalism. This means, inter alia, that the use of admin one-click rollback in such cases is inappropriate (and abusive). Revert if you must, but do not characterize such edits as vandalism. Kelly Martin 18:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I've replied in full at your Talk page, but I'll just say here that I agree that violations of the style guide don't constitute vandalism; in this case, though, BGC has been reverting corrections to the articles (including corrections of unpiped, incorrect Wikilinks, duplicate linking, hyphens, abbreviations, etc., despite repeated explanations. I argue that this – especially when done repeatedly and across many articles – does constitute low-level vandalism. Note also that the use of rollback isn't restricted anywhere that I can find (and I've looked hard), and seemed (still seems) to me to be appropriate in this case. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Mel, from looking at the history of the article, it is obvious that you two have disagreed over the style used in the article for quite some time (as is quite obvious from both of your reverts). However, calling this vandalism of any sort (even "low level") is unjustified. Vandalism is editing which jeapordizes Wikipedia's integrity in some way, which reverting, at least in this circumstance, does not. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)