Talk:Optical disc packaging

Discwheel image: advertising ?
The image showing the "discwheel" has the company's website address and phone number on it; surely this is advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.228.141 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole section on Discwheel read like promotional material, complete with external links. I've removed the section in its entirety. If somebody wants to re-write it in an encyclopedic format, I have no objections. --GraemeL (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing CD Storage Binder
This article doesn't mention the storage item that looks like an album, it is called either CD Storage Binder or CD Storage Book or CD Nylon Wallet (Nylon CD Wallet) —  Ark25  (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Steelbook
Steelbook redirects here, but there is no mention of it on the page. Peter Ward (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

With a 2-disc case, what disc ordering is best?
This first question leads into the more relevant second question. If you use a two-disc case to ship a single-disc, do you put that disc on the right or on the left? (On the right, it would be the first thing that the user sees when opening up the case.) Secondly, if you use a two-disc case for two discs labeled Vol. 1 & Vol. 2, would you still put the first disc on the right? If so, then again, disc 1 would be the first thing a user sees when opening the case. But it seems peculiar to insert them right to left, instead of the U.S. standard of left to right. Thoughts? Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

StrongBOX
There was a revised version of the polystyrene CD jewel box called StrongBOX (or Strong BOX) whose main difference was a change to the hinges to make them wider/thicker with a box section to prevent them from snapping off like the standard case hinges. All four corners were slightly rounded to improve damage resistance if dropped on a corner. But being made of polystyrene they still had the same issues with the lid and back cracking if crushed, such as by being sat on. Allsop now makes a slim case they call Strongbox, which is made of some plastic other than polystyrene. Aside from the type of plastic the design is entirely conventional and no relation to the other design. Bizzybody (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 February 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Optical disc packaging → List of optical disc packaging formats – This is a listicle: there is no underlying subject here of encyclopedic note. Instead this is simply a collection of different examples, unrelated to one another except by that single link. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. –  23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is a regular article and not a list --FMSky (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It plainly isn't. None of the sources discuss this as a subject: they all refer to the individual entries. There's nothing to tie this together as a subject in itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There are literally walls of text if you scroll down, no one would consider this a "list". It would be clearly misleading imo --FMSky (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * "Listicle". This is a list padded by trivia. It isn't an article on a coherent subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Professional sound production has been notified of this discussion. –  23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Electronics has been notified of this discussion. –  23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose:It is not a list. On the other hand, I could support deleting the article.Constant314 (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What would be the rationale for deletion? It serves as central coverage for a number of notable topics e.g. Jewelcase. ~Kvng (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose - I agree it is a listicle so either name is acceptable. until someone makes improvements to push this towards list or towards article in its construction, we should stick with the established title. ~Kvng (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

No move, no cleanup, no progress
We now have an editor reverting the removal of completely unsourced material under the guise of article improvement. This will not stand. This is an article full of accumulated crap, more suited to someone's blog than an encyclopedia. The inclusion of unsubstantiated material in the long term is not even a point of discussion. I will be fixing this again unless actually bothers to justify the inclusion of all this original research by adding the required citations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * With regards to why some material was removed and not others, that's because of the existence of references. I don't disagree that the "article" was left unbalanced, mostly because it should never have been moved from jewel case in the first place. My preferred option here would be to split that section back out to its own article (as it is the only part which has any substantial amount of secondary sourcing) and then make this a summary article, but I suspect this would be opposed on the same rationale as the failed RM. It's time for the people holding this article back to step up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Threatening other editors by deleting articles or material to get them to make improvements is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Kindly back off. WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * There's nothing in NODEADLINES (an essay, by the way) which prohibits editors from stating that they will fix things if other editors do not. Taking things to talk and then taking action if other editors deign not to bother responding is perfectly normal and acceptable. If you're actually arguing that this article is better in its current state then go right ahead and explain why. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it is more complete with the material restored. It is therefore a better platform for making the necessary improvements. I believe this is also 's position. If you want the article improved, I suggest the productive thing to do is to roll up your sleeves and find the sources you are demanding that others to add. ~Kvng (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that the onus is one editors that want to keep the material to find sources per WP:BURDEN, which is a policy. If a source cannot be found. it is possible that the information is wrong or not notable.  In the words of Jimmy Wales "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources.  Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.--Jimbo " "here"
 * Constant314 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * As much as I am loathe to take the Word of Jimbo as gospel, it is indeed true that for established articles it is very much the case that longstanding unsourced material can and should be removed at will. This article isn't "complete" because it is a mistake; someone felt that jewel case did not entirely encapsulate the subject and thus padded it out with wads of unsourced trivia. "Things that CDs can fit in" is no more of a subject warranting an article in an encyclopedia than "things that cats can fit in" sans reliable secondary sources (to cover the subject at large as opposed to individual bits of it, per the farcical previous "consensus" that this is an article and not a list), and we don't have any. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Constant314, do you have any more recent gospel to share? That quote is from 2006. ~Kvng (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just WP:BURDEN, which is a policy.Constant314 (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to have another discussion about WP:BURDEN here. I've already been through that with both of you I believe. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is black and white policy. Not much to discuss.  If  wants to delete unreferenced material after a reasonable delay after tagging the material with a cn, I will support the deletion. Constant314 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't recall ever discussing the basic rules of content inclusion on here with you; indeed I don't recall any interaction with you prior to the recent debate on endianness which is unrelated except in the most crude inclusionist sense of "everything added to Wikipedia must be retained forever". I'm in agreement with Constant314 that if the editors defending the inclusion of unsourced material decline to actually bother to discuss the matter then consensus, policy and precedent make this a mechanically obvious decision. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Thumperward, sorry, I'm probably thinking of someone else with a similar editing pattern. Please stop your bullying. ~Kvng (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have anything to contribute on the merits of the content being discussed, or just additional personal commentary? Your very first contribution to this discussion was to demand editors "back off" from someone who hasn't even replied yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in rehashing. It's not a novel conflict and it is ongoing across Wikipedia so I don't assume we will be able to resolve it. I assume you're working on good faith but I haven't found it easy to collaborate with you. My patience is running thin so that's another reason I don't want to dig into this with you. I'm not here to get angry with other editors, I'm here to improve the encyclopedia collaboratively. ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Gentle editors, I think everyone here is acting in good faith even with passionate disagreement. So, let's get back to talking about improving this article. Constant314 (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Right, so basically the current state is that a bunch of unsourced trivia was removed, thus making this article somewhat more coherent, and then it was all re-added without discussion. In the two weeks since this was questioned, nobody is prepared to defend that. So let's be rid of it again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * One editor's "unsourced trivia" is another editor's "uncontroversial comprehensive content". WP:BURDON says can remove stuff that's challenged. I think it is a poor application of this policy to remove stuff because one editor deems it trivial. In this discussion so far, we don't have consensus to remove this material. The improvements we should easily be able get consensus about is adding citations to the material. ~Kvng (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That is not what WP:BURDEN says. You know it, I know it, and it is tiresome to continue to misrepresent it. Quoting from it directly one final time:
 * "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."


 * Nothing about "challenging" anything as a prerequisite for removal. There is some supporting material suggesting that leeway may be provided for new content, or editors given time (such as by tagging uncited material before removing it), but most of this content is over half a decade old and has already been tagged that entire time. It is perfectly possible for it to be added back when someone can bother to find citations for it. Instead hours of people's time are being wasted on stupid ideological disputes. This discussion shouldn't need to happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well then we have different readings of the policy. I was interpreting this part:
 * "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
 * This footnote appears to apply to our situation here:
 * "When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material." ~Kvng (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If you think that this allegedly "chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information" is to the detriment of the encyclopedia then please raise that in an appropriate central forum (you've already accused me of it on my talk page of course). For now, I'll stick to what the non-footnote section of that page says and expect that when this unsourced material is removed again, it is not restored without reliable secondary citations. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll try to WP:FOC. I've made some sourcing improvements this morning. Are you interested in helping with this? ~Kvng (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)