Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-04 1950s Topps

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	1950s Topps
Status	open
Request date	23:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs), Libro0 (talk · contribs)
Mediator(s)	Mike92591 (talk · contribs)
Comment	Discussing

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab active cases|1950s Topps]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|1950s Topps]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

User:Libro0, User:Baseball Card Guy

What's going on?

There is a disagreement about use of decimals vs fractions for size description in inches. There is also a dispute regarding the overuse of unsourced non-free images. I have also been unable to add information because of unwarranted reverting by the other party. :-)

Update. Some of the issues have been dealt with while newer ones have arisen. There has been a dispute with regard to use of the brand name image. There is also the question of being able to use the term 'standard' for certain card dimensions which are industry designated 'standard size' which is two and one half by three and one half inches. There are several other issues I have not touched on yet such as table usage. Libro0 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

I would appreciate it if the verifiability of a source is respected. I would also like it if the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines were also adhered to.

Additional: Although the case is directed at the 1950s Topps article, it was my hope to try and standardize the pages involving the other years as well. I would like to have a good number of established users assist in the upgrade and cleanup of these articles. The opinions and advice of long established users should help the progress of the article's improvement. Libro0 (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I would appreciate it if the discussions I have made on the talk page would be acknowledged and properly responded to. I am somewhat working on this, though I am not a member of this mediation group. FYI, the RFC is here. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is just more attacking from Libro0. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actual Discussion

On decimals vs fractions

Okay, I think I've gone over this dispute well enough to start talking about it. The first thing I want you two to clarify is the decimals vs fractions issue. In my opinion, it is strictly an aesthetic/readability thing. I don't think accuracy has anything to do with. As decimals, all of those measurement would be accurate as long as they are not rounded. Would each of you tell me your case in terms of aesthetic/readability? By the way, don't respond to each other just yet(I want to make sure I understand each position first). Mike92591 (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the decimal issue was resolved at Talk:1950s_Topps#Decimals. At least there hasn't been any edit warring about decimals for over a month now. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that but, I didn't see much from Baseball Card Guy so I thought I should ask anyway. Mike92591 (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Libro0's view

Aesthetically speaking I don't care for 2,3,4 or more decimals places. Neither did Fram which is why he rounded them causing a diminished accuracy. See here. Libro0 (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So I'm assuming that accuracy is an issue but, what makes you think that 2 to 4 decimals digits aren't good for most readers? Mike92591 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The inconsistency and because inches are not measured that way and are more easily understood as x/16 whereas metric is measured and understood in decimals. All sources printed or electronic that I have encountered use fractions to describe the dimensions. The reader can then verify without the hassle of conversions. Libro0 (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Inches are measured that way just not often. So is your reason commonness? Mike92591 (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

True. Decimal inches are seldom seen outside of mechanical engineering. Libro0 (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Baseball Card Guy's view

This will be my only statement until Libro0 lives up to her word and stops editing the baseball card articles as she promised and gives me a formal apology for her egregious violations of etiquette, policy, and civility. Any apology that includes the typical mean spirited passive aggressive attacks that Libro0 seems to love will not be considered an apology, but an escalation. The statement is as follows:

Libro0 has been deliberately targeting me and without consensus and ignoring other has been unilaterally editing the baseball card articles as she sees fit. She has deliberately engaged in attacks, calling in others while wasting their time with her lies and schemes. She has deliberately attacked me on several occasions. I will not be a further party to her attacks, but I will remove her vandalism. As for decimals, they make sense as fractions do not look right. 2 1/2 or 2.5? Which looks better? Which takes up less space?

Again, this is all I have to say until Libro0 acts. The ball is in her court. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether that's true or not, let's put off talking about individuals for now. So you mentioned space but, that would only be the case if they were rounded. How important do you think accuracy is? What makes you so certain that most readers will think the same? Mike92591 (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This was already covered. Half or 1/2 was said to be the one instance where 0.5 could be used. So 2.5 or 3.5 are all okay. I would like to move on to 'standard', font/logo/image, tables and other standardizing issues. Libro0 (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll move on when I'm ready to move on. Also, that may not be inline with your reason. Mike92591 (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have given Libro0 specific instructions on how to contact Topps, including the address, nearest subway stations, maps and link to a trip planner. She has no excuse to either contact them in person, via the mail, or via a hand delivered letter. I have spelled out specific instructions, including authentication protocols, with a specific time line. This should not be particularly hard to complete and it would allow for her to once and for all prove the copyright status of the various Topps packaging from the 1950s and 1960s. If she thinks and makes the claim that this material is not governed by copyright, she should prove it. It just requires a bit of traditional communication. This is my last communication with regards to this matter unless Libro0 complies. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts and further discussion

I figure anything about a preference to either would be here but, it isn't. In my opinion, The only strong reason given was commonness. It makes sense that it would be more readable because it would be in a format they'd expect. So, I think fractions should be used over decimals for inches. As for using "standard", I don't see much of an advantage to it. You guys might also want to consider separating the size column. Mike92591 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

On non-free images

The opinions seem straight forward enough, I'll just give my thoughts. The images I've looked at seem to be used reasonably. They all seem to be in fair use. Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Non-free image use in list articles looks like it is being followed. It's not like its giving each card, just an example from each year. I'd consider that different enough to justify it. Also, I think an example is helpful but a link to all of the corresponding cards would be nice too. Mike92591 (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)