Talk:Where You Go I Go Too

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Where You Go I Go Too has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
August 22, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Albums (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Electronic music (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Norway (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Infobox[edit]

WP:Albums is not the be all and end all on Wikipedia. They provide guidelines not rules, and as such these guidelines may be ignored when appropriate. The breakline code makes reading the infobox much easier to read and is neater in appearance; as the creator and main contributor to this article, I have an obligation to make it the best article possible. It may appear that I am attempting to take over this page. On the contrary, I am ignoring editors who possess nationalistic ideals—ideals that stamp out creativity when it disturbs the status quo. They are the ones who take over articles, not me. Wikipedia must have rules and guidelines, but there must be room for creativity. Please discuss-- Noj r (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Noj r. This is a style issue where the opinion of three people who think this looks better could sway you, right? I don't think this detail inhibits article quality as it is not related to the content, it's a mere format thing. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
If it is a mere format issue, why does everyone seem intent on reverting my edits? Nobody said it looked better, they just touted the guidelines. In effect, everyone basically said, "This is how WP:ALBUMS does it, don't change it." Consider the following articles, which follows similar guidelines: Tool formatted history as Early years (1988–1992), Stereolab formats it as 1990–1993, and The Smashing Pumpkins formats it as Early years: 1988–1991. None of them are wrong; it is left to the editor's discretion which format they use. I only ask the same respect be given to my format choice. -- Noj r (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how those titles in Bands are supposed to be titled for their own prose sections, but I believe WP:Albums has genres and producers separated by commas so that the infobox doesn't get longer then it needs to be! With things like reviews it's alright as it's easier to read reviews if they are in point form and would be quite a mess if they were written with commas separating them. As this article is part of WP:Albums, prepare for project members to have articles that are labeled GA and FA keep up with the standards of the project. Also note WP:Own which was mentioned as despite the work done on an article, if it's valid, a user can come in and edit it freely and non-disruptive edits should not be reverted. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM guidelines must be upheld. All field entries are comma delimited lists. If you wish to bring the discussion up further the place to do it is at the album project talk page. Wether B (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly does WP:ALBUM need to be followed verbatim? I think that is the question that this user is acting - up until now I took it on good faith that it was actual policy, but is this user correct in that it is actually a guideline? (At this point I am not siding with the user as the arguments in both ways seem tenuous at best) Luminifer (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Andrzejbanas, I understand the need to keep infoboxes concise. However, there are exceptions; this particular infobox is longer by one line with breakline code. In fact, most infoboxes would hardly be longer than several lines and look much better as a result. Wether B, guidelines that must be upheld are not guidelines. They are rules. This is precisely why I am frustrated. Guidelines indicate a reasonable amount of creativity in shaping an article, but I cant even stray a tiny bit without editors stifling me with protocol. Cheers, -- Noj r (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the point about keeping with wp:album layout rules. A "reasonable amount of creativity" is limited to either commas or break codes. A comma delimited list was elected by consensus so that all music related infoboxes would maintain some amount of consistency. The coded breaks result in longer box lengths which is not preferred. THey also result in the "grocery store receipt" look which is un-appealing when compared to the more encyclopedic "sentence structure" list. All album, song and musician infoboxes should never use a coded break for any of their fields other than the ones that have consensus agreement to use the code. Fair Deal (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
We have both asked for, and never been pointed correctly to, the consensus where this was supposedly reached. Can you send as a pointer, please? Luminifer (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Luminifer. Where is the purported discussion so we may view it? -- Noj r (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALBUM. Fair Deal (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is where the rule is defined, but I have not been able to search through the archived discussions and actually find any meaningful discussion/consensus on this rule... Were you actually involved in it? Luminifer (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)