![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I propose adding two naboxes to this article, both of which Wikilink back to this article. After 14 days of discussion a decision will be made about whether or not to add these navboxes. The discussion can continue after the 14 days, but after 30 days of inactivity, this thread will automatically be archived by
MiszaBot. If the navboxes are added, and there is subsequent discussion the navboxes will stay in place per
status quo ante bellum, until the subsequent discussion has been concluded.
{{
classical guitar}}
{{
flamenco guitar}}
The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template (which may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders). [1]
When !voting ...
Support, Oppose, Neutral, or Comment; be sure to sign with ~~~~. Note that your !vote will only be counted if it includes the text ![]() |
References
Respectfully submitted, {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
06:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
classical guitar}}
navbox contains a '
list of classical guitarists' which includes
Michael Laucke as a notable classical guitarist, and the {{
flamenco guitar}}
navbox contains a '
list of flamenco guitarists' which includes Laucke as a notable flamenco guitarist! Warm regards,
Natalie.Desautels (
talk)
07:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)There are links in the article to both articles. The navbox is correctly linked at the bottom of those. We do no link any other Category:Musical instrument templates on musician articles just because they are listed in an article linked in that article. It would be unusual to do so unless the subject is an obvious example of the style of music.
Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional.
Per the bidirectionality principle above, this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template.
… is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
21:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
18:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template, not inclusion of the navbox on the article. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 14:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
21:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Izno, it isn't exactly "ignoring a rule" when there is no hard-and-fast rule to ignore. The section on navboxes – Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates – seems to have a number of qualifiers that allow editors leeway. I was just reading this (emphasis mine):
Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:
If some of these criteria are met, then it might be appropriate to include one or more navboxes in the Laucke article. I'm still not advocating the inclusion. I just don't think the first statement in your last comment was logical. I understand the point made in WP:LOCALCON. It also seems a bit contradictory to include several qualifiers in the navigation template guidelines that clearly offer leeway and state that the decision is to be left to editors working on an article:
The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
and at the same time say in WP:LOCALCON:
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay.
Does anyone else see the contradiction? I suppose both can be true at the same time, but it is confusing.
Is the inclusion of navboxes in the Michael Laucke article a change "to policies and guidelines" (first sentence, second paragraph). If so, then Walter Görlitz was right in saying pretty much:
Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny.
If not, then the decision can be made locally, by the editors working on the article. If "community consensus on a wider scale" has already been reached regarding this specific issue, then the leeway offered in the navigation template guidelines shouldn't be there.
Other considerations:
I'm just trying to help move the discussion along. I apologize if any of my statements or questions are off-target, and, of course, you're free to ignore all of it. – Corinne ( talk) 03:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)This article really needs a major overhaul if this is to obtain FA status. It's poorly structured overall which affects the flow with too many short sections. In places it reads like a magazine article too. It needs a stronger coverage of his career. We have early career, but the article seems to fork off then into different areas, rather than being a comprehensive account to present.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Nicely done so far with this article.
It's well referenced and comprehensive.
I've performed a bit of copy editing but I still have some lingering concerns about long sentences and WP:NPOV.
Some of the tone, not all but some, comes across as a bit hagiographic.
Perhaps might want to tone that down to more of an objective encyclopedic tone if and when thinking about going for a second try at Featured Article.
He's certainly had quite an impressive and admirable career, and even if the wording is changed slightly to improve tone for more of a neutral point of view presentation -- the article will still end up serving him in good stead as a comprehensive look at an inspiring career.
Hope that's helpful.
I haven't read the old Featured Article candidate try that didn't pass yet, but I'll read that through later and see what else could maybe be addressed further. Sagecandor ( talk) 04:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Florian Blaschke#Copy edits, Talk:Fake news website#Copy edits to intro section, and User talk:Corinne#Hello and thank you for your intererst [sic]. – Corinne ( talk) 03:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Sagecandor I'm sorry. I disagree with almost all of your edits, so it would be quite time-consuming to discuss them. If you had first looked at the top of the article's talk page, you would have seen that this article had achieved Good Article status after Natalie.Desautels, Checkingfax, Pdebee, and I had put a lot of work into it. It was also copy-edited by a prolific WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors editor, Twofingered Typist. The article was near achieving, but did not achieve, Featured article status (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Laucke/archive1, but not particularly because of the prose but mostly for other types of problems. Now you are changing everything, and I am just disappointed, that's all.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I propose adding two naboxes to this article, both of which Wikilink back to this article. After 14 days of discussion a decision will be made about whether or not to add these navboxes. The discussion can continue after the 14 days, but after 30 days of inactivity, this thread will automatically be archived by
MiszaBot. If the navboxes are added, and there is subsequent discussion the navboxes will stay in place per
status quo ante bellum, until the subsequent discussion has been concluded.
{{
classical guitar}}
{{
flamenco guitar}}
The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. If a disagreement should arise, please centralize discussion at the article talk page, not that of the template (which may be watchlisted mostly only by template coders). [1]
When !voting ...
Support, Oppose, Neutral, or Comment; be sure to sign with ~~~~. Note that your !vote will only be counted if it includes the text ![]() |
References
Respectfully submitted, {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
06:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
classical guitar}}
navbox contains a '
list of classical guitarists' which includes
Michael Laucke as a notable classical guitarist, and the {{
flamenco guitar}}
navbox contains a '
list of flamenco guitarists' which includes Laucke as a notable flamenco guitarist! Warm regards,
Natalie.Desautels (
talk)
07:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)There are links in the article to both articles. The navbox is correctly linked at the bottom of those. We do no link any other Category:Musical instrument templates on musician articles just because they are listed in an article linked in that article. It would be unusual to do so unless the subject is an obvious example of the style of music.
Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional.
Per the bidirectionality principle above, this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template.
… is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
21:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
18:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
this may also affect inclusion of a particular article in a navigation template, not inclusion of the navbox on the article. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 14:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
21:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Izno, it isn't exactly "ignoring a rule" when there is no hard-and-fast rule to ignore. The section on navboxes – Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates – seems to have a number of qualifiers that allow editors leeway. I was just reading this (emphasis mine):
Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines:
If some of these criteria are met, then it might be appropriate to include one or more navboxes in the Laucke article. I'm still not advocating the inclusion. I just don't think the first statement in your last comment was logical. I understand the point made in WP:LOCALCON. It also seems a bit contradictory to include several qualifiers in the navigation template guidelines that clearly offer leeway and state that the decision is to be left to editors working on an article:
The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by wikiprojects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.
and at the same time say in WP:LOCALCON:
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages or template documentation written by a single individual or several participants who have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process have no more status than an essay.
Does anyone else see the contradiction? I suppose both can be true at the same time, but it is confusing.
Is the inclusion of navboxes in the Michael Laucke article a change "to policies and guidelines" (first sentence, second paragraph). If so, then Walter Görlitz was right in saying pretty much:
Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny.
If not, then the decision can be made locally, by the editors working on the article. If "community consensus on a wider scale" has already been reached regarding this specific issue, then the leeway offered in the navigation template guidelines shouldn't be there.
Other considerations:
I'm just trying to help move the discussion along. I apologize if any of my statements or questions are off-target, and, of course, you're free to ignore all of it. – Corinne ( talk) 03:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
23:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC){{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
00:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)This article really needs a major overhaul if this is to obtain FA status. It's poorly structured overall which affects the flow with too many short sections. In places it reads like a magazine article too. It needs a stronger coverage of his career. We have early career, but the article seems to fork off then into different areas, rather than being a comprehensive account to present.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Nicely done so far with this article.
It's well referenced and comprehensive.
I've performed a bit of copy editing but I still have some lingering concerns about long sentences and WP:NPOV.
Some of the tone, not all but some, comes across as a bit hagiographic.
Perhaps might want to tone that down to more of an objective encyclopedic tone if and when thinking about going for a second try at Featured Article.
He's certainly had quite an impressive and admirable career, and even if the wording is changed slightly to improve tone for more of a neutral point of view presentation -- the article will still end up serving him in good stead as a comprehensive look at an inspiring career.
Hope that's helpful.
I haven't read the old Featured Article candidate try that didn't pass yet, but I'll read that through later and see what else could maybe be addressed further. Sagecandor ( talk) 04:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see User talk:Florian Blaschke#Copy edits, Talk:Fake news website#Copy edits to intro section, and User talk:Corinne#Hello and thank you for your intererst [sic]. – Corinne ( talk) 03:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Sagecandor I'm sorry. I disagree with almost all of your edits, so it would be quite time-consuming to discuss them. If you had first looked at the top of the article's talk page, you would have seen that this article had achieved Good Article status after Natalie.Desautels, Checkingfax, Pdebee, and I had put a lot of work into it. It was also copy-edited by a prolific WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors editor, Twofingered Typist. The article was near achieving, but did not achieve, Featured article status (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Laucke/archive1, but not particularly because of the prose but mostly for other types of problems. Now you are changing everything, and I am just disappointed, that's all.