Template talk:Sade

Removing red links from template

@Robsinden: Wikipedia:EXISTING states, "Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first."

There is no absolute ban on redlinks in navboxes. Mitchumch (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your best to get content editors to make the articles in question. You will find that most template editors are here to make templates look nice...not help our readers or to expand content.....thus they will just delete red links or any link they find not useful. Just start sub articles then link them is your best bet. The Film and TV templates have some very odd protocols....so much so they are the example of what not to do in our guidelines. Best not to fight with them......just do what is best for our readers and hope they dont get in the way.Moxy (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Thanks for the heads up. Your suggestion seems prudent, but how would your suggestion prevent this type of editing? Mitchumch (talk)

@Mitchumch:....it is one of the oddest thing that the film project members do ..as seen at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Navigation....I still to this day have no clue why they want to orphan a certain type of article and make them hard to locate for our readers. They do thing all backwards there...for example... they spam award temples all over ..but cant link films, cast and crew in a templates. Look at the mess at the bottom Clint Eastwood ...links to literately hundreds of unrelated bios...but cant find the movies he started in. We even have a guide for just this problem WP:ADVICEPAGE (they are one of the examples mentioned) ...but they dont seem to care or even understand the problem. The worst of it all in they use WP:BIDIRECTIONAL as a reason to remove templates all over,,,but the wrong ones...they remove a link ...then claim WP:BIDIRECTIONAL for its removal all over. This has come up many many times before......best to assume that the fight time is not worth the effort...build content dont bother with the deletionists they can never keep up with content and links being added back by others over time.--Moxy (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy: Thanks for the additional links and info. This is the first time I've unknowingly waded into this wikiworld. Unfortunately, this type of editing is not being restricted to Film and TV templates. See discussion at Template talk:Civil Rights Memorial.

Please stop adding in record producers, session musicians and managers who worked with the band. These people work with many bands and are not intrinsically linked to any one artist. Take Roger Davies (manager) for example. From the article, we can see that he worked with Sherbet, Olivia Newton-John, Tina Turner, Dalbello, Cher, Janet Jackson, Sade, Pink among others. To include him here, and in order to avoid WP:UNDUE, we would have to add him to navboxes for all of the above and more, and then include those navboxes on his article, which, as I'm sure you can see is impractical and would be ridiculous on his page. --Rob Sindem (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsinden: Please quote or excerpt the relevant passage from WP:UNDUE, because I don't see it. Mitchumch (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some people simply dont get it.-- Moxy (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Avoid template creep is a good essay on the subject. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robsinden: Please quote or excerpt the relevant passage from Wikipedia:Avoid template creep, because I don't see it. Mitchumch (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the example I mention above, if you add Roger Davies (manager) to navboxes for Sherbet, Olivia Newton-John, Tina Turner, Dalbello, Cher, Janet Jackson, Sade, Pink and more, you'll end up with about 10 templates on his page. That's template creep. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good essay ...but still odd your project spams award templates.... but cant link the most relevant articles. Now the music projects are asking why the articles they have made years and years ago are being orphaned in the same manner. Like here i simply inform them (with out naming editors)...that this blanking of a certain type of article is for some odd reason the norm...I tell then to have a discussion as to what should be in the template and do what they think is best despite any edits you or others have done. Seems to work well some times your deletions get added back some times they dont...but either way I tell them not to add the templates back to film and tv article...seems to work well. I see much less people bugging you. Just wish you understood that our reader and editors have expectations that related articles will be seen in a template ....not just in run-around links. --Moxy (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of the awards templates either. Or the ones for reality TV series. Or the sports team rosters. Much better left for articles. But I don't have the energy for that fight! --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]