Jump to content

Template talk:Randy Newman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Films scored

[edit]

The films scored by Randy Newman were removed from the navbox without citing any policy. I would like to see the policy that prohibits listing the films scored in a film composers' navbox. Otherwise, the films should be restored to this template as pertinent information. Softlavender (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And then someone else is removing the Randy Newman navbox from films he scored. So we have a double problem. Oh, same user. And a navbox warrior to boot. Montanabw(talk) 23:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have filmographies in navboxes per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates., but it is okay to link to the actual soundtrack articles, as Newman is the primary contributor to those. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 1#Template:Bill Conti for precedent. And per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, the navboxes should not be transcluded on articles that are not linked to in the template. And please, WP:AGF, I'm just tidying up per the guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense Rob, we had this discussion over a year ago elsewhere where you unilaterally changed the guideline and then insisted everyone follow your version. There are many times that a Bidirectional navbox is ludicrous and would bloat a necessary navbox with hundreds of articles when all that is needed is a single link back to a general overview piece. Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was the opposite argument, that any article that is linked to in the template should have the navbox transcluded. That is no longer in the guideline. See this edit which was subsequently removed. The guideline STILL states "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The filmographies mentioned in that WikiProject link only apply to actors, no one else. Please do not interpret WikiProject protocal on a totally different subject to your liking on an unrelated subject. A composer known mainly for his film scores should have the films scored listed in his navbox, just like the plays scored by a composer of musicals are listed in their navbox, and the films directed by a director are listed in their navbox, and the operas scored by a composer are listed in their navbox. The purpose of navboxes is to make information easily and instantly available and visible, and to link articles, and to join lists of articles together in a way that's more accessible than categories and lists. To include only the articles on two soundtracks implies he only ever scored two films, and is extremely misleading. Per WP:BRD, you need to establish consensus to remove the films before removing them from the navbox, therefore I am going to replace them. Softlavender (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is incorrect. "The operas scored by a composer are listed in their navbox" draws the analogy that the film scores by the composer are included on the navbox, not the films scored. Big difference. The composer is the primary creator of the opera or the film score, the director is the primary creator of the film. Otherwise we'd end up with WP:NAVBOXCREEP if every creative force behind any work of art gets their own navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you call them "film scores" or "films scored", they all belong in the composers' navbox, not just the few that happen to randomly have album articles on Wikipedia. Especially for a film composer. To include only the articles on two soundtracks implies he only ever scored two films, and is extremely misleading. Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, for the reasons outlined above. And as for the misleading thing, remember that this is a navbox, not a filmography article: it's here to provide navigation, not information. We link between notable existing articles. If the soundtracks aren't notable in their own right, that isn't the fault of the navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The soundtracks are notable (and are often discussed in the films' articles); the fact that they don't have individual articles is a mere accident of circumstance. Either every film score should be listed in this film scorer's navbox, or none should. Obviously the correct choice is every one, since film is his main genre of composing. Navboxes provide information, and the information should not be misleading; it should be complete. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong in all of your assumptions. Per WP:EXISTING, we link between articles that exist; articles for most of his soundtracks do not. This is not through "accident of circumstance", the soundtracks have not yet been deemed notable enough in their own right to merit standalone articles. There is no all or nothing approach needed, again per WP:EXISTING, and the "correct" choice is not to link to every film article that he happened to write the soundtrack for. And no, navboxes do not provide information, they provide navigation, so they do not need to be complete, this can be dealt with in a filmography section of his article, or on a standalone article (again per WP:EXISTING). --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...the soundtracks have not yet been deemed notable enough in their own right to merit standalone articles. That is not true, any more than the lack of an article on any subject matter in WP denotes lack of notability. It just means no one has yet created a separate article on it.
Yes, but we only link to existing articles in navboxes. There are not articles for these soundtracks/scores. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for further input from relevant projects - let's see others' opinions rather than go head to head on this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Film scoring is a major part of Newman's creative work, and so adding them into his template (templates are for navigation and relevant information) seems appropriate. Randy Kryn 10:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the film scores, but not the actual films. And no, navboxes provide navigation, articles provide information. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rob, the film articles on WP more often than not aren't going to have a separate article... you link to the films. Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't provide information might as well take away all section divisions and jumble everything together. How about linking to the film article section, as I've just done for Newman's 'The Natural'? This would add the data while being relevant, and if a film doesn't mention the soundtrack then it can be removed. Randy Kryn 10:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't link to sections, as this removes the bolding function of the navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen links in bolded sections. Links are often appropriate for section headings. Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The automatic bolding of an active link in a navbox doesn't happen if a section of an article is linked to. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... and if a film doesn't mention the soundtrack then it can be removed. I disagree with this. A film composer's filmography should be complete or not listed at all. If it's incomplete, that is inaccurate and misleading. Softlavender (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"navboxes provide navigation" – and exactly for that reason it is helpful to many readers to mention all films he scored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was clearly taken out of context... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to consider the precedent that some of the most famous composers of film scores do not have navboxes (for example John Barry, John Williams, Danny Elfman), and the ones that do, say {{Hans Zimmer}}, only include links to the scores. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely nothing in that discussion supporting navboxes for composers, and it's little more than 50/50 for screenwriters or producers, except in exception. The only pro-navbox stances discuss the creative drive behind a film, something the composer is not. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Rob, not going to change. You aren't going to win this one and I suggest you drop the stick. Montanabw(talk) 17:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging all users who contributed to that discussion. @Betty Logan: @MarnetteD: @Lady Lotus: @NinjaRobotPirate: @Lugnuts: @BattleshipMan: @Dimadick: @Rlendog: @Frietjes: @Debresser: @Wikipedical: @Jusdafax: @Mamyles:. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And also, please read WP:ESDONTS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should include templates of some of the more famous composers of film scores, like John Williams, James Horner, John Berry, Danny Elfman & such and the ones who were created like Hans Zimmer should be worked on with links to each movie soundtrack to their scores. I also think we should discuss templates for some of the other composers of film scores whatever or not to have templates. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other than enforcing a guideline that may or may not apply here, why are you opposed to listing his films in the navbox? -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the question of having a navbox is not relevant to this discussion, the issue is listing the films where he wrote the score. Seems there is an overwhelming consensus to keep them, other than one person, so let's just move on now and take the rest of the drama elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 05:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the thing to remember is that navboxes exist to serve a function, and that is to aid navigation to articles of primary interest to readers of whichever article the template is placed on. In the case of composers I do not think articles should be added to the template unless they offer something substantive about the subject's work. In the case of this template I find it peculiar that Maverick (film) is included in the navbox (which offers little of interest to readers interested in Newman's work) but Maverick (soundtrack) is not, despite the fact it is dedicated to the film's soundtrack. Is this an oversight, or is there a rationale behind the decision to include the film article and exclude the soundtrack article? Sometimes editors choose to add a sountrack section to the article rather than create a separate sub-article, such as at Toy Story#Soundtrack, and in such cases I see the logic of adding such articles to the template because the article offers something substantive to readers about Newman's work. On the other hand I fail to see any reason for including Cold Turkey (film) and Parenthood (film) which offer very little detail at all. Betty Logan (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Randy_Newman&oldid=1235450900"