Talk:The Trouble with Love Is

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

"The Trouble with Love Is" talk page.

1 "International" charts
2 Single title in the tables
3 Reasons For Changes
4 Inconsistency
5 Flopping

[edit] "International" charts

Just as I can't see how the UK and/or Australia are any more "international" than the US is, I don't see how they're any more "worldwide". Yes, I can see how they plus others might be, but as it is now, they're not. So, inspired by an earlier comment of fvw's, I've merged the tables.

See also the discussion at the pump.

-- Hoary 01:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Hoary, I've read the discussion at the Pump, I have to disagree on some matters. The seperation of the US and other charts is not meant to be US centric at all. Take a look at Complicated or Sk8er Boi. There as you can see Avril Lavigne's home country Canada is listed first, while other countries are listed later, as Avril is Canadian. Also the charts do need to seperated. The Trouble With Love is was a flop, so it didnt chart on many charts, but there are over 30 (probably more) charts in the USA, whereas other countries just have one chart (usually just based on sales) OmegaWikipedia 04:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh huh. It starts to make sense now: "international" means something like "international from her point of view" (or so I tentatively infer). But if you want to put the US first and the rest thereafter, why not use "elsewhere" for the latter? I think it would be immediately understandable.

This approach of "native country first" may not be a good one across WP, as many "artists" (crooners, warblers, etc.) move around a bit, maximizing profits and minimizing taxes. (Are the Stones British, American, French, or what?) -- Hoary 05:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I still prefer worldwide :) The Rolling Stones? Hmmm, perhaps I can describe Mr Jagger... UK business person of retirement age who does most of his upscale marketing in America and lives in France, which must make him Engmericais? Wyss 07:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Where does he draw his pension? That's the key question. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

But Wyss, how are the Youkay and Australia any more "worldwide" than the Youess? Actually they seem similarly worldwide: all three send off their young chaps on Iraqi adventures after oil, etc. (Yah, Mr Jagger actually makes me feel young.) -- Hoary 10:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the decision about how to distinguish the rest of the world from the U.S., why the need? I've not seen grounds for splitting the table in the first place. So the U.S. has more charts than other countries (a further symptom of its moral dcay? You decide) — why should that make a difference?

The trouble is that the vast majority of these pop-music articles are deeply U.S.-centric (infoboxes in which "format" is given as "not released in the U.S.", chart positions assumed to be U.S. unless otherwise stated, etc.). The deeper trouble is that they're defended to the last drop of blood by their "owners" (including poor Wiki-style, poor English style, fanzine language, fan-gush descriptions of minor videos in enervating detail, etc.). I've suggested elsewhere (only half in jest) that we just hive them off into "Wikipop" or something of the sort, only keeping the few genuinely encyclopædic articles for Wikipedia. There was agreement, but it's never going to happen I'm afraid. Instead a few editors will continue with the Sisyphean task of trying to get this district of the Wikipedia city into shape. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Helpful notion Mel... I agree with you it'll never happen. Wyss 08:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A comment about the "native country being listed first": I'm still greatly upset that the USA or the U.K. is seen as "more important" than another country. If you look at reality, these countries aren't the most important—the USA is a terrible mess, the politics are horrible (Arnold Schwartzenegger as Califiornian governor? Good grief!), and the people there are completely conceited. Canadians know more USA capitals and states than Americans know Canadian capitals and provinces—and their population is greater than Canada's ten-fold.

Yes but they have lots of cars. Wyss 08:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I really do think that a Canadian (or whatever the nationally may be) have their country listed first in their own section or single section.

And please excuse my above ignorance of the United States. Winnermario 23:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Winnermario, the federal government is so far out to the right that Arnie actually looks reasonable by comparison. I'd take Arnie over Dubya any day -- but most European politicians (of course not le Pen, Haider, Paisley, etc.) over Arnie. Hoary 03:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Mel, I sympathize. There's a huge amount of what looks like utterly uncritical recycling of gush from supermarket checkout magazines and daytime TV. Legends Weekend is one example of an article on an unimportant non-event -- but this publicity stunt verifiably did occur, and it's indisputable that thousands (tens, hundreds of thousands?) of American wymmynfolk (and even some others?) are fascinated by such gossip, so I suppose it must stay. (Indeed, I'll concede that it has a certain small and unintended gruesome fascination. One celeb gives every celeb diamond earings, and all the recipients shriek with delight! Crikey!) However, I've made a start in reducing the gush, and haven't met much resistance. (No drops of blood.) Yes, all this blather (detailed exegeses of computer-aided moon-June-soon singles, etc.) should go in a separate WikiPop, just as StarWarsTrek characters, vehicles, planets, etc. should all go in a separate WikiCruft; but that's not going to happen because millions of people are fascinated by this stuff -- which may be just what the government wants: bread and circuses; the voters are diverted while more and more money is moved from the lower class (not supposed to exist, but embarrassingly visible in Nawlins) and middle class to the plutocracy. -- Hoary 03:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the following by OWP from where it was first posted: after the first paragraph of Mel's message. -- Hoary 06:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Many reason, for some, the US chart system is also funadmentally different from most other countries, not to mention that many of them are interconnected and there is a lot of cross charting. OmegaWikipedia 05:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

If anything, you seem to me to be hinting that I was right in my earlier suspicions: that these Billboard charts are much of a muchness and don't all have to be written up. (Just because Billboard and radio stations, etc., derive commercial benefit from announcing Tweedledum and Tweedledee charts doesn't mean that WP must slavishly follow them.) But OK, let's assume for a moment that the charts must be separated: (a) US/Billboard, and (b) the rest. Why should the rest be titled "International"? -- Hoary 06:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, why not list each bit by country and be done with it? Wyss 08:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I've started combining the charts; they look fine, they're perfectly clear, there's no reason for separating them. I tend to agree that the obsession with listing every U.S. chart (is this connected with the obsession with statistics in U.S. sports?) should be checked, but I've not done anything about that. Of course, the more excitable "owners" of these articles have already started reverting my edits, calling them vandalism, or referring to this discussion. Not the first time. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

While I don't really see the point of listing so many different charts anyway (this is an encyclopedia, not a depository of facts), I agree with Mel Etitis. The U.S. charts are next to each other (it's not like the "international" - ugh - charts are sandwiched in between them), and are distinguishable from the others. I don't see what the problem is. Extraordinary Machine 17:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Most of the people editing the articles dont agree though. They present a messy look and dont help stress the Billboard factors OmegaWikipedia 17:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

But why would we be wanting to "stress the Billboard factors" (I think listing them before the others would "stress" them enough)? I don't think it looks "messy"...why do you? And who are "most" people? Extraordinary Machine 17:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

But the Billboard factors are an entity in themselves. Other countries only have one official chart, while Billboard has an interconnected system that looks messed up when theyre combined. If the USA only had one chart, then I would agree, but they dont. Most people are the people who edit the pop articles most often and who have objected to the charts like me, USWF, DrippinInk, WinnerMario, Triggy, etc, and even multiple random IP numbers! I think that shows how much this change in unwanted if even random IP numbers disagree. OmegaWikipedia 17:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Normal readers (i.e. ones without a great interest in the subjects of these articles) probably don't have detailed knowledge of the Billboard magazine chart hierarchy, and many aren't from the U.S., so to them it may be a little strange to separate U.S. charts from all the rest (as if emphasising that they are somehow more significant because there are more of them). It's also a little jarring for readers to have several section headers in close proximity to each other, as well as breaks between identically arranged tables for no apparent reason. User:Fvw originally suggested merging the chart tables at the Village Pump, and there were no objections. User:Mel Etitis and User:Hoary have been working through single articles and merging tables, and I thought the changes looked much sleeker and consumed less space on the page (as well as reducing article size, if only slightly), so I began doing it also. But I'm being reverted by you (yet again), and in the meantime, Mel Etitis and Hoary are also having their edits rolled back. This is a violation of Wikipedia's harassment policy. You are on extremely thin ice, OmegaWikipedia; myself and others have come very close to filing a request for comment against you, and one has even left Wikipedia partly because of your actions. Please stop and reconsider what you are doing. Extraordinary Machine 18:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

EM, FYI, I have been in discussion with Hoary about the matter since it came up. And there have been some talks with Mel too. How am I violating the harrasement policy? Please, explain this to me. You never make sense when you accuse me of this. If thats considered harassement then you violating the policy too as you are reverting edits by Triggy, me, Winnermatio, the IPs, etc.

[edit] Single title in the tables

The title of this single is "The Trouble with Love Is". Yet every line of the tables reminds us that the title of the single is "The Trouble with Love Is". I now read "The Trouble with Love Is" eight times in one screenful. This column of the table(s) seems utterly superfluous. Is there some reason why I shouldn't delete it? -- Hoary 06:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I say be bold :) Wyss 08:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is good reason to leave it the way it is. Many times, remixes or alternative versions chart of the same song. Like for instance We Belong Together has three different versions of the song charting. It would be misleading to erase the song's title and leave the remix portion of the song unknown. This happens in many other singles too. And sometimes, remixes can't be expressed by a title in parentheses, but a full subtitle (which would be misleading without the full title). OmegaWikipedia 10:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In We Belong Together, it makes sense (though even there it seems rather laborious). In The Trouble with Love Is, however, no alternative (or augmented) title is used. How about adding this column IFF there's some variety among the titles? -- Hoary 10:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

A few singles sections I edited did not contain the title of the song. I completely agree with omitting them from the article, however OmegaWikipedia is right, as well. It can be misleading. Winnermario 21:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Why in the world was the "Since You've Been Gone" article positions of the song all smushed into one big list? I think that it looks like a big mess, and completely unprofessional. I will be reverting the edits immediately. DrippingInk 22:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons For Changes

The USA Charts should be listed in one table because they all have something in common namely, they all come from the same region ie. USA.

The International Charts also have a common element, namely they all come from regions outside the USA.

Listing the two tables as one does not make sense because there are many USA charts and only one chart from each of the other regions.

-South African User

Well, said. I completely agree. OmegaWikipedia 19:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, you chose to revert, so here goes:

The USA Charts should be listed in one table because they all have something in common namely, they all come from the same region ie. USA. The International Charts also have a common element, namely they all come from regions outside the USA. I understand where you are coming from here. However, I am opposed to this split. Essentially, it divides the world into two sections: "USA" and "International". This introduces a slightly biased, POV (point of view) slant to the article that is not appropriate to an encylopedic article intended to be read by visitors from around the globe.
Listing the two tables as one does not make sense because there are many USA charts and only one chart from each of the other regions. The separation of the tables and insertion of new section headers has created a rather choppy effect. Look at The Trouble with Love Is for example. Six U.S. positions in a table all by its own looks rather odd, but just two in a table in a section on its own looks extremely odd, and disrupts the flow of the article somewhat. Can you see how it might not read very well? Also, can you understand why some people might think that the article is trying to put an emphasis on the U.S. charts by listing them in a separate table?
Please consider creating an account on Wikipedia so you can communicate with other editors more effectively. Also, you can sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Extraordinary Machine 20:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This represents my view too. It's been pointed out in a number of places by different editors that most of the pop-music articles are heavily U.S.-centric, which violates Wikipedia's key policy of neutral point of view. In the very few articles in which "international" is defined against some other country, such as Canada, the same applies. Wikipedia is not geographically located, and everywhere is international. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not claim that the above is POV. It is not. And I do not care if these are your opinions. We have opinions too, and you cannot just choose to ignore us, which you have been doing these past few weeks. Winnermario 15:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't just mere opinion, this is official Wikipedia policy. Violation of it may result in a request for comment being filed, which could lead to punitive actions against you. Also, please consult Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Extraordinary Machine 15:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not POV. Take a look at the Avril Lavigne singles. There you can see Canada comes first. And agreed with Mario. You seem to think that our opinions dont matter. OmegaWikipedia 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This is about referring to everywhere outside the artist's home country as "International", whereas that dispute could be resolved (as well as choppy section headers and separation of small tables for no apparent reason) simply by listing all chart positions for every country in one simple table. But instead, you're insisting on listing the U.S. positions separately (even for non-American artists), which is U.S.-centric and a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Extraordinary Machine 15:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

We can definitely think of another name for those other countries if thats a problem. You dont seem to understand how the Billboard charts work, EM. They are one entity, and cant be seperated. And its not POV. In fact you even said up there it was only slightly. This honestly seems like an excuse for you to seperate them. And please dont be so rude with your response to Winnermario. Theyre very snide "Please consult Wikipedia:No personal attacks, or a complaint may be filed against you, which could lead to you being blocked from editing for a period of time. Thanks." OmegaWikipedia 15:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's refer to the individual Billboard charts as "A", "B", C", etc., and to individual non-US charts as "I", "II", "III", etc. What you seem to want is something like:

Comprehensive Charts

Billboard Charts

International Charts

III

(I understand that you're open to new suggestions for the titles.) Now, I don't think anybody has proposed:

Comprehensive Charts

III

or similar. Instead, it's:

Comprehensive Charts

III

For whom would such a tabular layout be at all hard to understand? -- Hoary 02:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hoary, in theory its not bad. But in reality, I dont think it really works out for the best interest. (Otherwises this heated debate wouldnt be going on). Boa has devised a new chart system that I think works out and is a compromise of sorts. How does that look to you guys? Also before, you questioned the usage of the word International, and I think you said you thought other words would work better if they had to be seperated. Could we think of another word? I'd prefer to keep it as international, but if another word works, thats be fine. Would Worldwide work out? OmegaWikipedia 19:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not a Wikipedia policy! This is your opinion! So shut your mouth! There was no problem with these charts before you and the ass-of-a-professor who has been violating all of the pages he has edited since entering Wikipedia. And we've (these names being kept confidental) have already filed complaints against Mel Etitis and you. You had better watch out. Winnermario 15:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Please consult Wikipedia:No personal attacks, or a complaint may be filed against you, which could lead to you being blocked from editing for a period of time. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 15:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get it. And like I've mentioned in the above (which you not surprisingly ignored), a complaint has already been filed against you and Mel Etitis. Winnermario 15:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

And on what grounds has this complaint been filed? Extraordinary Machine 15:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you have been stalking people, EM. (And then you accuse others of doing it, which is very ironic) OmegaWikipedia 15:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You're going to need evidence (i.e., diffs and links) if you intend to carry through on accusations like that. Please, share with us. Extraordinary Machine 15:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you accused of stalking up there. Do you have evidence? And you made a comment earlier about a disagreement I had with another user. Considering that the disagreement took place on our talk pages, the only way you would have known about would be if you keep looking through my contributions or watch my talk page often. Maybe it doesnt fall into the technical defintion of stalking, but it is very creepy. OmegaWikipedia 15:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Visiting somebody's talk page isn't considered "stalking" by Wikipedia's harassment policy. Following an editor across at least half a dozen articles and undoing useful edits to them, however, is. Extraordinary Machine 15:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it isnt stalking, but it is very creepy behavior. Why do you do it? Are you that intrested in me? I defiitely dont visit your talk page, unless I need to leave a message. Now, can you please give evidence of me "following" editors? OmegaWikipedia 15:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I made a comment in a summary to an edit of my talk page here, and you replied to that comment here, which strongly suggests that you had my talk page on your watchlist. Essentially, if by your logic what I have done is "creepy behavior", then you are guilty of doing the same. I will supply all the evidence that is needed to support my argument at the request for comment that I am currently preparing. Extraordinary Machine 16:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Um, you seem to forget, we were leaving comments on each other's talk page a lot at that time. Of course, I saw what was on your talk page.

You might want to save yourself time with that useless RFC. All the edits you've accused me of have no basis. You accused of following you around the Mariah Carey pages. Hello?! (Did you realize I created most of them, and they've all been on my watchlist for months since they were created, long before you came to edit them?) Did you realize I've been editing the Britney Spears, Kelly Clarkson, and Gwen Stefani articles for months? They've been on my watchlist for a long time too. If you don't believe me, you can look at the history of all those pages. I've been editing those articles for a long time, and they're on my WATCHLIST. It's very funny for you to accuse me of following you, when I edit these articles all the time.

You on the other hand, I noticed just started editing the Kelly Clarkson articles. There was no other reason for your editing except for you to revert. This is stalking and grounds of harrasment, because youve obviously been following someone, and you never edited them before. OmegaWikipedia 16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

OmegaWikipedia is correct. Let me be the first to say in this discussion that User:DrippingInk was being stalked by Mel Etitis for a very long time—I was sent an email saying "Months of work was watered down into something Mel Etitis-POVed". I can believe this. The Spice Girls, Avril Lavigne song titles... it's just unbearable at this point. Winnermario 19:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

But you've already told us that And we've (these names being kept confidental) have already filed complaints against Mel Etitis and you, where "you" is, I think Extraordinary Machine. Presumably these complaints will run their course and do their thing (will these two be demoted? banned? shot? electrocuted?); there's no obvious reason for also banging on here about the (perceived) evil of Mel Etitis. Better, discuss what's announced in the section header. -- Hoary 02:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Above, Omegawikipedia has written of tables that combine Billboard charts and what are now (I think unfortunately) called "international" charts without mixing the two kinds of charts: in theory its not bad. But in reality, I dont think it really works out for the best interest. (Otherwises this heated debate wouldnt be going on). OWP, I'd like you to explain how it doesn't really work for the best interest; or (the same question upside down) how a separation of two tables is superior. If the answer is that a separation into two tables is less confusing, I'd like to know what kind of person would be confused. (Although we should keep in mind the requirements of people for whom English is not a first language, I think we can expect a certain degree of literacy, intelligence, and at least a minimal attention span.) -- Hoary 02:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Omegawikipedia continues above: Boa has devised a new chart system that I think works out and is a compromise of sorts. How does that look to you guys? This was not so easy for me to find. (Incidentally, I wonder about the username Boa: "Boa" is legitimate way of writing BoA, a Korean pop singer.) But I'm pretty sure you mean the two tables as exemplified in this version of "Since U Been Gone". Perhaps in order to address the concerns of some people about US-centricity, this puts the "Billboard" table below rather than above the "International" table, but aside from that it seems much the same as the two-table system that you (plural) have been defending, complete with superfluous column ("Since U Been Gone" / "Since U Been Gone" / "Since U Been Gone" / "Since U Been Gone" / "Since U Been Gone" etc.). Interestingly, the last item in "International" is "World Chart Show"; I don't know what this means and I'd guess it isn't actually world-encompassing (or does it really count sales in Tonga or Togo?), but it probably is genuinely international, thereby justifying the title "International" in an obvious way. Also, it has a "U.S Singles Chart"; so whatever "International" means, it is not simply "beyond the singer's own nation" (she's from the U.S.) or "beyond the U.S." I can make some more guesses about the design of this chart, but perhaps Boa or you could explain instead. -- Hoary 02:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency

It is really stupid that on some of Kelly Clarkson's song information pages the chart tables are unified and on others not.

South African User

Fine, let's unify the lot then. We'll unify them in the way that wastes less space: in single tables. -- Hoary 02:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's going to take along time, given the number of accounts (many very new, oddly) reverting the changes. I still haven't grasped the objection to unified charts (I'm sure that it can't be "We don't like the look of them", given the fuss made when I was – wrongly – interpreted as using that argument against the album-infobox-2). Splitting "World" from "Billboard" is even worse than the alternative split, implying as it does that Billboard charts are extra-terrestrial. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

A bot might do it, no? And perhaps it's just me, but the Billboard charts do seem curiously extraterrestrial. But then so much of America seems so, not least the proclivities of substantial chunks of the electorate -- when not disfranchised by malfunctioning Diebold hardware, etc. (OK Rummy, call me an Old Eurasian....) -- Hoary 15:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

A bot might mess things up though. If someone could make a list of all the pages with tables that need unification I'm sure with combined efforts we'd have them done in not time, I'd be more than willing to chip in an hour or two. How many articles total are we talking about here? --fvw * 23:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thouands — but it's not that easy, I'm afraid. The unifying process is being persistently reverted by a small group of editors (for no very clear reason), together with what look very like sock-puppets and IP-addresses. It would be great to have help, but you need to know what you're getting yourself into. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not a good idea to start yet, for two reasons.

First, the anti-unifying bloc will surely claim that their PoV is being ignored. Give them a little more time in which they may either (a) argue their PoV and help all come to an agreement (even to persuade you 'n' me and others) or (b) indisputably show their lack of interest in arguing their PoV. Some of the members of your "small group" indeed appear to have no interest in discussing matters, but others do appear to be ready to do so and I haven't given up hope that they will.

Secondly, I'm not at all sure that even I know what I want, let alone whether it's the same as what's want by others who seem to agree with me. (I) Unify the tables, yes -- but how? I agree not to break up the Billboard stuff, but should it be (a) at the top, or (b) at the bottom, or (c) wherever is determined by the relative alphabetical position of "United States" or "US" (almost always the bottom, but not necessarily so)? (II) Remove the column for song title where the title is uniform throughout? (III) Also remove the column for year (or anything else) where its content is invariant throughout? -- Hoary 10:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a special discussion page (with a poll) would help; we could put links on all the Talk pages of the articles affected. Say: Wikipedia:Music-chart standard - poll? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The word "poll" is not so good, as WP is not a democracy. A similar page with a different title? By all means, but this week and next I'll probably lack the time to kick it off in any coherent way. -- Hoary 02:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I think, in fact, that it is a democracy; it's just not majoritarian. Wikipedia, for some reason probably lost in the mists of time, distinguishes between a poll and a vote — votes are bad, polls are OK. The policy on them is that they shouldn't be used unless there's no other way of resolving a disagreement; I'm inclined to think that that's the case here.

As for the page's name — how about a statement of the various options at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music-chart standard, with discussion taking place at the Talk page? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hoary, I've been having some connection problems lately, so I hope I didnt miss anything, (and I dont know how stable this connection will be) but I think most people in the so called "anti-unifying bloc" have expressed their concerns at least once over why they should not be unified. I can't speak on behalf of everyone else, but you know I am (and have been in the past) willing to discuss the matter. OmegaWikipedia 21:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

They (or you, plural) may have done, but I haven't seen it. Rather, it's mostly "we/I like it this way", "this is the way it's always done", or "this way is less confusing" -- with no convincing explanation (or none that convinces me) of how the other way might be more confusing. As for deleting columns that I regard as superfluous in many but not all of the tables, there's also the issue of consistency. I agree that consistency is a laudable goal, but when it's used to justify the inclusion of a certain column in fifteen tables because it's actually informative in three of them (let's say), then for me the goal of consistency is easily eclipsed by that of compactness. -- Hoary 03:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (to all). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

So you're agreeing to pause for a short while? -- Hoary 10:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I already have, in fact (no-one seems to have noticed, which is disheartening). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There is not going to be any short break. In case you have not noticed, I am vexed with the behaviour of some Wikipedians. I will continue to revert articles as long as it needs to be done. 64.231.69.204 21:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

As am I. --Winnermario 22:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)