Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 12 December 14 >

December 13 edit

Template:NFLteamstartingquarterbacks edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NFLteamstartingquarterbacks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Redundant templates, this template and Template:NFL starting quarterbacks are redundant of one another. Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete They used to be two seperate templates, but now that they have been merged, there is no need to have this one anymore. Gilliganfanatic 23:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Northern Territory elections edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Remove election information from government template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Territory elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Government of the Northern Territory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Northern Territory elections with Template:Government of the Northern Territory.
Propose merging Template:Northern Territory elections into Template:Government of the Northern Territory. Duplication. The only additional information on the elections template is the addition of the article about the 1998 referendum. Currently on each of the election pages there are both of these navboxes. It seems pointless having both when one only adds the reference to the referendum article.Mhiji (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:FIFA World Cup 2018 Qualifiers edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per G7.

Template:FIFA World Cup 2018 Qualifiers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

per WP:CHRYSTAL, I'm the author. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Heavy Trash edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep Mhiji (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heavy Trash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox. Red links. Only links the band and one of it's members. None of the albums or singles have an article. Mhiji (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NENAN Mhiji (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, keep as now articles have been created for all of the albums and 1 single. Mhiji (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Poi Dog Pondering edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poi Dog Pondering (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox. Red links. Only links one member and 2 past members. None of the albums or singles have an article... Mhiji (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albums, etc. are on the way. WP:RED: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." I highlighted just the albums because I thought it would be a good starting place for tackling this enormous discography. I put a lot of careful fact-checking into my templates; it would be a real waste to toss it out the window. Wikkitywack (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that part of WP:RED is irrelevant, since WP:REDNOT states there should not be red links in navboxes. However, I'd support keeping this template if articles for the albums are created, otherwise delete it. Mhiji (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. A few redlinks in a navbox is one thing, but a navbox of all or mostly redlinks is another. If Wikkitywack finds a navbox with redlinks helpful when creating the additional articles, there's no reason they can't have one in their user space. But there is no reason for a non-navigating "navbox" to be transcluded into articles. It can be moved back into template space once a reasonable number of links go blue. --RL0919 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Tompall Glaser edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tompall Glaser (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox. Red links. None of the album or singles articles have an article... Mhiji (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albums, etc. are on the way. WP:RED: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." I highlighted just the albums because I thought it would be a good starting place for tackling this good-sized discography. I put a lot of careful fact-checking into my templates; it would be a real waste to toss it out the window. Wikkitywack (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that part of WP:RED is irrelevant, since WP:REDNOT states there should not be red links in navboxes. However, I'd support keeping this template if articles for the albums are created, otherwise delete it. Mhiji (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. A few redlinks in a navbox is one thing, but a navbox of all or mostly redlinks is another. If Wikkitywack finds a navbox with redlinks helpful when creating the additional articles, there's no reason they can't have one in their user space. But there is no reason for a non-navigating "navbox" to be transcluded into articles. It can be moved back into template space once a reasonable number of links go blue. --RL0919 (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cravin' Melon edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep. Mhiji (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cravin' Melon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox. Red links. None of the albums or singles have an article... Mhiji (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. Again, I tested my theory (see Boney James below): creating templates full of red links improves efficiency in building entire discographies for underrepresented artists. To reuse my metaphor, it's like setting the foundation for a building. Wikkitywack (talk) 07:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, again keep as there are now articles for the albums. You may think that "creating templates full of red links improves efficiency in building entire discographies for underrepresented artists", but the guidelines say otherwise... Again, we must follow the guidelines unless they are changed. You're welcome to start a discussion to try and get them changed though if you feel strongly about it. Mhiji (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Craig Chaquico edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Craig Chaquico (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox. Red links. None of the albums or singles have an article... Mhiji (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albums, etc. are on the way. WP:RED: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Craig Chaquico is not an obscure musician. As you can see by the quantity of his solo work, he will inevitably need a template. All red links have been carefully disambiguated. Wikkitywack (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But that part of WP:RED is irrelevant, since WP:REDNOT states there should not be red links in navboxes. However, I'd support keeping this template if articles for the albums are created, otherwise delete it. Mhiji (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDNOT does not state "there should not be red links in navboxes." It does state "red links are generally not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes" - the operative phrase being "generally not included". This tells me that people have perhaps overlooked the potential for red-linked band templates, etc. to aid in efficiently building large bodies of work that are currently missing from Wikipedia. You say, "However, I'd support keeping this template if articles for the albums are created" - if it is inevitable that the man will have a template, and I have provided the foundation for that template - wouldn't it be wasteful to delete it? Wikkitywack (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, there's no deadline we have to meet, it can be easily recreated when it's needed. You could use that argument for any templates or articles, that eventually they might be necessary, might be used or might be notable... If we used that as a valid argument, nothing would ever get deleted or merged and we'd have hundreds of useless templates which aren't helpful and thousands of stub articles which again aren't helpful. It's not inevitable the man will need a template - if no-one ever makes the articles, one will never be needed. (See my full reply at The Dambuilders discussion - I figured we might as well continue the conversation there rather than have it in several different places. Also I listed a number of other reasons at the original Boney James discussion.) Mhiji (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. A few redlinks in a navbox is one thing, but a navbox of all or mostly redlinks is another. If Wikkitywack finds a navbox with redlinks helpful when creating the additional articles, there's no reason they can't have one in their user space. But there is no reason for a non-navigating "navbox" to be transcluded into articles. It can be moved back into template space once a reasonable number of links go blue. --RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Dambuilders edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Dambuilders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox which only links the band and two of the members - one of which might not be notable anyway. There are no articles for any of the albums or singles... Mhiji (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody erased my red links, which were there to encourage people to build articles. It is my opinion that they should be reinstated - this is an efficient way to build entire discographies. PS - WP:NENAN does not apply. If a band has a fair number (large, in this case) of albums, etc. templates are always useful. Wikkitywack (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again... the red links should not have been there per WP:REDNOT - that's why they were deleted (and the user that did this explained why on your talk page). Why doesn't WP:NENAN apply ("Perhaps the most insulting is a navbox with only two entries: it's just an extraneous little piece of coding that offers yet another, redundant gateway to the next article. Such a navbox practically screams, "hey, you need yet more help getting from Point A to Point B, don't you?")? Mhiji (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some things to think about: First of all, WP:REDNOT does not say "navboxes must be without red links." It does say, "red links are generally not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes" - the operative phrase being "generally not included". This tells me that people have perhaps overlooked the potential for red-linked band templates, etc. to aid in efficiently building large bodies of work that are currently missing from Wikipedia. Also, since this language appears to have been added here (i.e. very recently and apparently without consensus), I am confused as to why you would 1. Hold it as a hard and fast rule and 2. Interpret it in such an extreme manner unsupported by the language itself. In addition, the other support for your "rednot" position (in the first paragraph on the page) was added here - one user's insertion, no rationale provided. This instruction is by assertion only.
I've given my reasons as to why these templates in particular should remain. What are your objections other than citing WP:REDNOT? As to the WP:NENAN quote - what does a quote about "a navbox with only two entries" have to do with this example? Last I checked, the navbox in question has potential for at least twenty-one... Wikkitywack (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Very recently"?! That was over a year ago. The timing that that was added (and that it was added there at all) is irrelevant because WP:NAVBOX#Properties has been round much longer (which states the purpose of a navbox is to navigate between existing articles). It doesn't matter if a rationale isn't given when adding to a project page as long as it is in line with the other guidelines and current usage, which that edit was (and consensus is only needed to change guidelines and practices - this edit didn't do that). The editor provided a link to the navbox page which I mentioned and WP:LAY#See also for the part about See also sections, both of which already mentioned not linking to pages which don't currently exist. Also, the fact that these edits have not been challenged since 2009 and 2008 respectively also suggests that the vast majority of users agree with them. By your logic, you can just ignore all parts of the policies and guidelines which use the word "generally" or which say "avoid" or "try not to"!! The reason that word is there is to say that it is not a fixed rule (like the one about not redlinking categories is), but in exceptional circumstances we can ignore it. However we should follow the guidelines at WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX#Properties most of the time - only if there are any exceptional circumstances we can ignore them. You're right, the navbox has the potential for at least 21, but currently there's only the main article, links to 2 members and a related article link, just 4 existing articles (the purpose of a navbox) (and I wouldn't really count the related article one...). Per WP:NAVBOX#Properties, why don't you write the articles first? This would be much more productive than just writing lists of articles which you think should be created. We need to have guidelines so that we do not have hundreds of useless navboxes. The reason I provided the link to WP:NENAN is because it explains why unnecessary navboxes with only a couple of links are not helpful. A navbox shouldn't be there if it doesn't do what it is intended to do (aid navigation between existing articles). A lot of the other issues on that page are also relevant, about unnecessarily cluttering the page, waiting until there's at least 5 articles, and that there's no deadline. As I've said 3 times now, I can see you feel strongly about this, so please do start a discussion to get the guidelines changed, but we must follow them until then. Mhiji (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you say things like "we need to have guidelines so that we do not have hundreds of useless navboxes" - it really makes me wonder if you're listening to me at all. My purpose in creating red link templates is to jump start discographies using the method I've described elsewhere. They are only "useless" if users like Memphisto come along and remove all red links. (I don't know why you're still saying things like "currently there's only the main article, links to 2 members and a related article link" as this wasn't my idea and is therefore irrelevant to our conversation. Obviously templates are not meant to be dead and/or meager lists taking up space...) "Per WP:NAVBOX#Properties, why don't you write the articles first?" - because, to quote the same sentence, "[my red links] are very likely to be developed into articles," and by creating red link templates, users are alerted to the need and have an efficient tool at their disposal. Wikkitywack (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree... I wouldn't say they are "very likely" to be developed into articles. Why do you say that? You mean you're planning to make them? It's just the artist's article itself is rather shoddy so if no-one is really bothered about improving that, I doubt they'd create new articles related to it. I realised Memphisto removed the red links. The fact that users like Memphisto have removed the red links and that Robofish nominated Template:Boney James for deletion in the first place and that hundreds of similar navboxes have been deleted because of the same reasons I've nominated these for (I can't be bothered to list loads of them but take a look at WP:TFD/L) shows that the general consensus is that we shouldn't have red links in these boxes. If you want to alert users for the need to create extra articles, why not add a discography with red links on the artist page? This would still be an "efficient tool" and no-one would dispute that, it's common practice. As you say, "templates are not meant to be dead and/or meager lists taking up space..." so you think in it's current state it is a dead and/or meager list (which I suppose means you're agreeing it should be deleted?), but if you add the red links back in it then becomes useful!? Again, if you want the guidelines changed, you're welcome to start a discussion on one of the relevant talk pages... Mhiji (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. A few redlinks in a navbox is one thing, but a navbox of all or mostly redlinks is another. If Wikkitywack finds a navbox with redlinks helpful when creating the additional articles, there's no reason they can't have one in their user space. But there is no reason for a non-navigating "navbox" to be transcluded into articles. It can be moved back into template space once a reasonable number of links go blue. --RL0919 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ugly Americans edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ugly Americans (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox which only links the band and one of the members. There are no articles for any of the albums or singles... Mhiji (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody erased my red links, which were there to encourage people to build articles. It is my opinion that they should be reinstated - this is an efficient way to build entire discographies. PS - WP:NENAN does not apply. If a band has a fair number of albums, etc. templates are always useful. Wikkitywack (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again... the red links should not have been there per WP:REDNOT - that's why they were deleted (and the user that did this explained why on your talk page). Why doesn't WP:NENAN apply ("Perhaps the most insulting is a navbox with only two entries: it's just an extraneous little piece of coding that offers yet another, redundant gateway to the next article. Such a navbox practically screams, "hey, you need yet more help getting from Point A to Point B, don't you?")? Mhiji (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some things to think about: First of all, WP:REDNOT does not say "navboxes must be without red links." It does say, "red links are generally not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes" - the operative phrase being "generally not included". This tells me that people have perhaps overlooked the potential for red-linked band templates, etc. to aid in efficiently building large bodies of work that are currently missing from Wikipedia. Also, since this language appears to have been added here (i.e. very recently and apparently without consensus), I am confused as to why you would 1. Hold it as a hard and fast rule and 2. Interpret it in such an extreme manner unsupported by the language itself. In addition, the other support for your "rednot" position (in the first paragraph on the page) was added here - one user's insertion, no rationale provided. This instruction is by assertion only.
I've given my reasons as to why these templates in particular should remain. What are your objections other than citing WP:REDNOT? As to the WP:NENAN quote - what does a quote about "a navbox with only two entries" have to do with this example? Last I checked, the navbox in question has potential for at least eleven... Wikkitywack (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(See my full reply at The Dambuilders discussion - I figured we might as well continue the conversation there rather than have it in several different places. Also I listed a number of other reason at the original Boney James discussion.) Mhiji (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. A few redlinks in a navbox is one thing, but a navbox of all or mostly redlinks is another. If Wikkitywack finds a navbox with redlinks helpful when creating the additional articles, there's no reason they can't have one in their user space. But there is no reason for a non-navigating "navbox" to be transcluded into articles. It can be moved back into template space once a reasonable number of links go blue. --RL0919 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Nomainpage edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nomainpage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template doesn't really have any particular use, nor does it conform to general hatnote style. Additionally, it has no transclusions. cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 02:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Kansas City Royals MSHOF edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kansas City Royals MSHOF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan template that has no particular usefulness. It would be one thing if this is a template for the entire Missouri Sports Hall of Fame, but it's just a cross-section. Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a single-use template already substituted at Kansas City Royals. Also, imo, a template for the entire Missouri Hall would be even worse, as it would throw a whole bunch of random athletes who are entirely unrelated to each other together for no real benefit. Resolute 21:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it would be worse. I wasn't recommending creating one. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Boney James edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep for now, although the list of unlinked singles seems excessive. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boney James (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Premature: no need for a disambiguation template at this time. Not counting the 'related articles', this template only links two articles. When the albums redlinked here have their own articles, a disambiguation template would be appropriate, but right now it's just not necessary. Robofish (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand your rationale. Premature? What about "this template encourages wikipedians to start building Boney James articles..." Templates are the perfect vehicle to show how much work needs to be done on a person/band's discography (see WP:RED: "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished.") - and this action strikes me as extremely counterproductive. Wikkitywack (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But read WP:REDNOT - there shouldn't be red links in navboxes... And navboxes are to aid navigation - if they don't do that they shouldn't be there. Keep now as there are now articles for all of the albums. Also as a side note, album reviews should no longer be in the infobox, but instead use {{Album ratings}} per Template:Infobox_album/doc. Mhiji (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"And navboxes are to aid navigation" - precisely my point. Red links are future articles. Loading a template with a bunch of red links is like setting the foundation for a building (see my comment below). Wikkitywack (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PROBLEM SOLVED Phew. I just finished a 2-3 hour marathon of creating every Boney James album article to prove a point: my template saved me time and energy. I had already gone through the painstaking process of disambiguating each album in the template, so all I had to do was add my template at the bottom of each new page and proceed down the line until finished. This saved me a whole lot of aggravation. Trust me.
I've done this sort of thing for several underrepresented artists' templates, so I would appreciate it if you spread the word of their usefulness. I just did this as an exercise - I don't have the time to do it for everyone. The red links are there to encourage people to build articles. Peace, Wikkitywack (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please read WP:REDNOT, and also WP:NAVBOX#Properties. There shouldn't be red links - they don't aid navigation. If you want to show that an article needs to be created, you can use unlinked text in the navbox (although generally this should be avoided too - but it's better than red links being there) or you can add red links to the discography section of the artist's page. Per WP:NAVBOX#Properties, navboxes are to aid navigation between existing articles and editors are encouraged to write the article first. A navbox should be created after there are a number of articles to navigate between, not before. If you plan to create articles, please do so first and then create a navbox linking them, rather than the other way round (this will prevent it being nominated for deletion...). If you wish to use a navbox as a "to-do" list of articles you plan on creating to save you time and energy, please create it in your user space and then once the articles have been created (or while are you are creating them), you can move it to the main space. Mhiji (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you don't like the guidelines at WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX#Properties, your welcome to start a discussion to "spread the word of their usefulness" and about the possibility of getting them changed at one of the relevant talk pages (here or here). But we still need to follow them for now. Mhiji (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_13&oldid=1078572725"