Template talk:Anticon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow unregistered users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This template was accepted on 28 May 2012 by reviewer Pol430 (talk · contribs).

Excessive transclusion[edit]

While I definitely see the point of this navigation template, I think it has been quite excessively transcluded. Transcluding it for musicians which are or were signed with the label is of course very legitimate. I'd go further and say collection albums which are by the label, and not by a single group/artist are also good targets. But using this template with every album by every musician signed by the label is quite over the board. Some are simply not by the label (e.g. albums by Subtle), but even for albums which are by the label, navigating to other label members is quite excessive, not to speak of it being very non-standard. --Muhandes (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU REALLY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANTICON, Muhandes??? HAVE YOU LISTENED TO THEIR MUSIC???
IF YOU AIN'T FAMILIAR WITH ANTICON, YOU SHOULD RESEARCH AND LEARN MUCH MORE ABOUT IT BEFORE EDITING!!! AND IF YOU AIN'T INTERSTED IN ANTICON, THEN YOU CAN'T IMPROVE THE ARTICLES AND TEMPLATES AT ALL!!! WHAT YOU DID RECENTLY DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME!!! IT'S MORE OR LESS VANDALISM!!! STOP IT!!!
YOU WROTE "using this template with every album by every musician signed by the label is quite over the board." BUT YOU DID THE SAME THING USING Template:Doseone!!! HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY YOURSELF ABOUT IT???
YOU REMOVED Template:Anticon FROM REACHING QUIET, GREENTHINK, cLOUDDEAD AND SUBTLE!!! THEY WERE ACTUALLY NOT SIGNED TO ANTICON, BUT AT LEAST TWO MEMBERS OF EACH GROUP ARE CO-FOUNDERS OF THE LABEL!!! ESPECIALLY, BLINDFOLD FEATURES ALL FOUNDERS!!! YOU CAN'T SAY THEY AIN'T RELEVANT TO ANTICON!!! IF SOMEONE SEE THIS TEMPLATE, THEN HE WILL KNOW THAT THE MEMBERS FOUNDED ANTICON AND THAT THEY ARE MAKING MUSIC D.I.Y. WAY!!! HOPEFULLY, IT WILL NAVIGATE HIM TO THE LABEL THEY FOUNDED!!! I THINK IT'S USEFUL!!! 118.6.121.168 (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Please be civil and don't shout. You are welcome to discuss the label and navigation template, but please avoid personal attacks and ad hominem arguments.
To the matter itself, starting with the album articles. Using an artist's navigation template in all the creations of that artist is standard. In fact, it is encouraged. Using a label's navigation template in all albums by the label is excessive. There is a wide consensus on this matter at the albums WikiProject. You can also see for yourself that we don't used any label's navigation template on almost any album (except label compilation album). You are welcome, of course, to start discussion at the talk page and try to achieve new consensus on the matter. But please do not go against the consensus.
Regarding the groups/bands/artists, I removed the navigation template from groups that are not signed by Anticon. Putting it there is misleading and inappropriate. Putting a band which is not signed with Anticon in Category:Anticon is also misleading. I totally agree that a person reading about, say Greenthink, may be interested to read about Anticon. This is already achieved since the link to Anticon exists in {{Doseone}}. A navigation template to to all the other Anticon artists is excessive.
On a final note, please read WP:BRD. You made a bold move to add the navigation template. I reverted. We now discuss. Please don't edit war. --Muhandes (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
hey, muhandes, you should answer the questions i asked first. have you ever listened to their music until now? are you interested in anticon and indie hip hop??? if no, then you can't expand the articles and templates at all. edits by people like you will be very confusing.
maybe "Using a label's navigation template in all albums by the label is excessive." for example, using it on peeping tom may be useless. but using this template on albums the founders made can be useful to instantly let readers know that the members founded a label, even if the group itself doesn't signed to anticon. don't forget that anticon is an independent record label, not a mainstream thing. like strange famous, doomtree, def jux, fake four inc, and living legends, co-founders such as doseone are also musicians. it's relevant. anyway, i don't think "there is a wide consensus on this matter at the albums WikiProject." also, i don't think "This is already achieved since the link to Anticon exists in {{Doseone}}." that template doesn't tell us that he founded the label.
you can also see for yourself that we used label's navigation template on album (except label compilation album). wow, you really don't know anything about it... see daylight.
and i don't do any personal attacks, dude. NEVER. 118.8.149.204 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, you retort to Ad Hominem arguments about me instead of discussing the matter. Saying "It's vandalism. Muhandes doesn't know anything about anticon." is a personal attack. It relates to me, not to the subject. Please start acting civil and stop it.
Navigation templates are not there to "tell us that he founded the label". That's what the article is for. They are there to link to related articles, and {{Doseone}} does exactly that. As you think this fact is so paramount to the subject, I went your way and added the text "(founder)" to {{Doseone}}, so now everyone can see that too. Again, a navigation template which includes all other founders, all signed artists, and all compilation albums, is excessive.
As for consensus, it is apparent from the fact that almost no article has a label's navigation template transcluded. Consensus does not need to be spelled out when common practice clearly shows it. I am more than willing to start full discussion of the matter at WT:ALBUM if you wish. --Muhandes (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Since you refuse to go by the de facto consensus I have asked for more participants to join, so we can achieve de jure consensus. In the meanwhile, please stop edit warring. --Muhandes (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
i think you should stop edit warring before you order me first. dont waste my time and also your time.
im just sayin that the edits by someone (in this case, you Muhandes) who arent intersted in and familiar with the subject (in this case, anticon) are often ruining the articles. i dont mean to do any personal attack. i act civil so hard. all i wanna say is "just do your thing, Muhandes." there may be the subjects youre familiar with, or at least interested in. expand them. improve them. not anticon. because you are not interested in it at all. right?
see other indie hip hop label templates. it doesnt matter how few there are. (will make more someday...) what matters is that its not major record labels such as warner, emi, or sony records. independent record label founders are sometimes also musicians. so we can use the indie record label templates such as anticon in another way. 122.26.187.139 (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── if your concern is that muhandes isn't familiar with the label - well, i am. and i agree with him. his argument is logical. cLOUDDEAD never released on anticon, they released on mush/big dada. having the anticon navbox in their article makes no sense. Kaini (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

the navbox on clouddead is useful because it lets readers know that all three members are co-founders of a label. you arent familiar with and interested in the indie record label thing, huh? pity pity... 122.26.187.139 (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
We fully understand that you think it is useful. The consensus, however, seems to be otherwise. I advise you to stop going against the consensus. --Muhandes (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
i don't mean to go against consensus, Muhandes. i guess we dont reach a consensus yet. i'm just doin what i think is right.
either way, i'm really glad to hear that Muhandes said "We fully understand that you think it is useful." so kind. i hope other editors such as Kaini and Memphisto also do. 118.8.2.54 (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can say "i don't mean to go against consensus" with a straight face. I explained to you that there is a de facto consensus not to include label navigation boxes on album articles. You ignored me, reverted all my edits, and re-inserted the navbox. I started discussion where three other editors told you the same (IllaZilla, memphisto and Martin IIIa). In response you reverted me again, and re-inseted the navbox for the third time. You were told by me the consensus is not to use label navboxes on artists not signed by the label. Guess what? You reverted and re-inserted. Kaini, again, explained to you that this is the consensus. You reverted him three times on Clouddead. On the matter of redlinks, two editors told you what the consensus is. You went into an edit war reverting over and over again. I think by now you established quite well that you intend to go against consensus over and over again, until we all get tired. I assure you, continuing to fight the consensus will be futile. If you really mean that you "don't mean to go against consensus", please stop that and revert your own edits and remove the navbox from all artists not signed by the label and from all albums, and save us the hassle.--Muhandes (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-links in the template[edit]

Navboxes exist to aid navigation between articles in Wikipedia, while lists should remain in the article body. Red links, redirect links and non-links should not appear in a navbox (as they do not aid navigation), although a fully populated navbox with a couple of non-links is acceptable. A guide to navboxes is available at Wikipedia:Navigation templates.

Any further addition of non-links to this template will be considered vandalism. memphisto 09:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

i dont agree that "red links, redirect links and non-links should not appear in a navbox (as they do not aid navigation)". because (a) red links mean that someones gonna make a article about it soon. (b) non-links appear on other templates such as Template:Rhymesayers, Template:Atmosphere and Template:R. Kelly singles. (c) redirect links aid navigation. so i dont think "Any further addition of non-links to this template will be considered vandalism."
anyway, you are welcome to do a discussion at Template talk:Infobox record label if you want to. not here. 118.8.2.54 (talk) 10:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
As I mentioned a guide to navboxes is available at Wikipedia:Navigation templates, and as they appear all over Wikipedia, any discussions about their use would be best made there. memphisto 10:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
the relevant passage-

Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles

  • Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first.
  • Unlinked text should be avoided. For example, {{Axis of Justice}} lists non-articles under "Notable guests", but this content seems more appropriate in an article.
Kaini (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
i guess dicussion at Template talk:Infobox record label would be better rather than here or Wikipedia:Navigation templates. 118.8.2.54 (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
The use of navboxes on Wikipedia is a global issue, and not one decided on a per category basis. Any discussion about what can be included in navboxes should take place on Wikipedia:Navigation templates. memphisto 10:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
there is no red links. redirect links are NOT red links. articles for plain text is being developed. so don't remove them. reverting repeatedly without any comments is impolite. Memphisto should resoponse to my previous edit summarys first. he calls my edits just "vandalism," but i don't get it. 118.8.2.54 (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I did not join this discussion yet, as I thought the subject of where the navbox belongs in the first place is more important. However, I do agree with WP:WTAF, and an article should be written before added to the navbox. --Muhandes (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Page protected[edit]

This template has been semi-protected from editing for a period of 3 days because of persistent edit warring. I have no opinion as to what state of this template should remain but consensus should be reached on this talk page before the template is edited again. J04n(talk page) 14:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thougt I fully protected the template as only one of the parties would be affected by a semi-protection. J04n(talk page) 14:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Additions needed[edit]

Just writing this down so it can be added when the template is out of protection.

--Muhandes (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverts by Memphisto[edit]

Memphisto repeatedly removed Sole and the Skyrider Band calling my edits "vandalism". I don't understand what "Undo vandalism by rotating anonymous IP" means. Can you explain it to me? Also, I want you to stop wikihounding me. 122.21.243.146 (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

While I don't agree with Memphisto that what you do is vandalism, by adding Genghis Tron you are clearly going against consensus in Talk:Genghis Tron, and most definitely going against WP:BRD. You are doing so after multiple (20? I stopped counting at 10) warnings. You are avoiding administrative action by hiding behind a rotating anonymous IP. All he can do is revert you and hope the article gets protected. --Muhandes (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected[edit]

This template has been semi-protected indefinitely because of persistent edit warring. Consensus has clearly been established for the template to remain in its current form. J04n(talk page) 18:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)