Quote:
Originally Posted by aleuzzi
Recently, I read through Wikpedia pages for the albums from 1975-current. I noticed that under personnel Lindsey is listed first (when he’s on an album). This makes sense. His name comes first alphabetically. However, Stevie is listed second (and first when Lindsey is not present). When I edited the order to be alphabetical for each album, someone reverted the pages and called my edits “not constructive.” I tried two more times and the changes were almost immediately reverted. I was then warned that I might lose editing privileges if I continued to make non-constructive edits. What?!
Even if there's an argument for listing first-to-last based on band member influence in recording each album, I doubt Stevie would be first or second name listed each time out…Nothing major here. Just annoying. I've never encountered this kind of think on Wikipedia before.
|
I'm rather active on Wikipedia and noticed these changes and the resulting disciplinary actions that followed. Generally, it's a worthwhile practice to assume that editors are operating in good faith; the warnings that you received are harsher than what I would have given. Occasionally, we see adjustments to articles that go unsourced (particularly the additions of genres) and users (including myself) are often quick to revert them. I would encourage you to send a message to the user's talk page and explain the reasoning behind the edits to the personnel.
My understanding is that names are listed in the personnel either by alphabetical order or by when each member joined the band (starting with Fleetwood and ending with Nicks in the latter instance for songs and albums with the
Rumours lineup). In other cases, the liner notes are referred to. However, this formatting is not uniformly observed on all pages as some edits occasionally slip through the cracks.
I hope this dispute doesn't discourage you from continuing to make edits on Wikipedia. For those who can provide sourced material to Wikipedia, I encourage you do so.