< November 11	November 13 >

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep. IceKarma ॐ 09:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Delete. I didn't read the discussion closely enough and the arguments for keeping it aren't as compelling as I'd thought. IceKarma ॐ 14:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable catalog linkages. In addition, as the catalog numbers are not entirely numerical, "previous" and "next" links are meaningless. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasons for deletion of ((FACnumber)) (TfD). "Articles on albums or songs, do not deal with a specific release, as many have multiple releases (and thus multiple catalog numbers). It is common to have separate releases for different countries, re-releases, alternate versions, and even releases under different record companies." These numbers are important (IMO), but it doesn't make sense to have templates like this. Rocket000 20:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Spurious argument in the case of highly influential, small record labels whose product was released in numerical order - Factory, Apple). Of course the original release is the only one which matters! All that said, I can't see any need for this particular template and it's rather ugly. --kingboyk (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nobel Laureates by year, tributaries of the Danube in order, record label releases by release number all serve a very simple purpose: to allow for quick sequential navigation. And if you think nobody would want to browse Factory or Creation Record releases by release number, you can't possibly ever have listened to music. ~ trialsanderrors 10:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Agree with trialsanderrors. Creaton is only second to Factory for notable cat # Doc Strange 14:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was never meant to be an exhaustive list of release numbers for a particular album. That is totally missing the point. Indeed some of the albums which were released in USA didn't have the Creation number anywhere in the article because the editor wasn't aware of it. I only found them because I was working through the albums in order (that is NUMERICAL order). Surely this is the kind of cross-referencing that makes WP NOT britannica. As to this being a marketing tool: first up... WTF? how many marketing men would waste their time with this BS. Secondly: that's an opinion!! Thirdly: Creation doesn't even exist any more, so what are we trying to sell? You deletionist timewasters certainly know how to put someone off ever touching wikipedia again. dyaimz 20:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Please explain how it is so encyclopedic to have links to sequential albums by a given artist but so unencyclopedic to have links to sequential albums released by a given label. Unencyclopedic is the new weasel word. It is the acceptable way for editors to say they don't like something. I'm having a hard time seeing exactly what the problem is here. Who exactly would be upset to see the previous/next release on a record label they are presumably already interested in as it released an album they are interested-in enough to read it's article.

This has nothing to do with notability. If the record label & associated album articles are not notable then that should be discussed at the relevant pages.

Let us not forget that this whole thing started with a delete request from Dreamwave444 whose only contribution to WP was that single request.

On the other hand "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template." I didn't get a notification.

dyaimz 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse order: It's also considered inappropriate to use a template as your signature. See WP:SIGNATURE#Transclusion of templates.

Your argument on the other TfD (with result Deleted) suggests you had adequate notice; and I disagree that adding a related template during a TfD necessarily indicates good faith. I would like to assume good faith, but it did appear you were making a WP:POINT. Also, there was notice on the not-yet-closed previous TfD noted above. So, I have doubts that there was a good-faith creator to notify, and all appropriate parties were notified on the onther TfD.

A simple box without previous/next links would seem reasonable if it's a notable label, but the numbers aren't issued in release order. If the previous/next links were to be in release order by label, rather than number by label, that might be appropriate, although almost impossible to reference. If you want a box similar to the previous/next works by artist box, that would be what would be needed, and the release numbers should not appear in the box.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is an argument for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no Wikipedia-based argument presented for keeping the template. As I said, it might make sense without the previous/next links, but that could probably be handled by a general Record Label template. The correct discussion is whether there is a proper use of this template, in which case other arguments for deletion might be required. My previous essay was a point-by-point refutation of User:Dyaimz's "reasons" for keeping the template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's what you thought it was. I don't see anything that amounts to more than an argument for editing the template. Upmerging of course would be another alternative, but upmerging does not require deletion either. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur, thank you for informing me of the signature rule. Why would you assume I was making a WP:POINT? Because you didn't like my attitude? If you could have been arsed to take a glance at the history you would have seen that CREnumber was created the month before the FACnumber deletion request. As I said, I liked the idea of the FACnumber template & so created CREnumber. The template is designed to be an aid to someone wishing to browse through the sequential numerical order of releases of the record label catalogue. If an exhaustive list of different formats, record labels & their release dates is required then that information is (usually) found in the article. This is interesting to someone who likes the record label, but if you don't, then nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. BTW, my participation in the FACnumber TfD discussion is no excuse for not notifying me of this TfD. You clearly know the rules better than me & you're assumption that I was breaking one doesn't justify breaking one yourself. Dyaimz (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please let's stay on track here. Personal attacks don't help. Notability is not the issue. If it is, a lot more than this template would be at stake including all references of catalog numbers in articles. I don't think, at least I hope not, anyone here is suggesting totally removing these. They are important. They are encyclopedic. People care.

It doesn't matter if catalog numbers is the method you navigate articles with. Everyone was there own way of doing things. We have lists and categories to help with that. For example, see how this could work as a list: Constellation Records discography (and if you know those artists, that list is sometimes the only way to navigate). Of course, templates help with navigation too, but not everything can have one. Articles would be taken over by templates if we included everyone that anyone may find helpful or useful. We have to decide what methods of navigation are the most useful. Creation catalog numbers are just not worthy of a template. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT aside, the mere fact that it's region- and time-specific drastically limits its usefulness. Now personally, I'm a fan of Oasis (a ex-Creation band), but I live in the US. My numbers are totally different. It's wasn't even Creation for me, it was Epic. In Japan it was Sony. People buying their albums now have Big Brother. Who knows what else. And that's just one band. Using only one system is biased and unfair to the rest of us. Using them all is insane.

What happens when one of the albums on Creation doesn't deserve an article. The navigation stops. Can't keep going with only a red link. You're going have to use the list to pick up where you left off anyway. I don't even understand why people are supporting this. There's no system in place; most of the articles don't have this template. Try to navigate with it. You can't, even if it was on every Creation article.

To the majority of us it's totally useless. To everyone else it's practically useless. Think about what good it's really doing, not the idea of it. Think of the articles, not what's useful to you. Delete the template, improve and use - Creation Records discography. Rocket000 (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that the argument 'how practical is it right now, compared with how practical it might be in the future, if all the albums had articles' is the most compelling yet. But you spoil it with the comment "most of the articles don't have this template". All 51 Creation album articles I could find have this template (which is probably why I'm somewhat peeved). Some I found, only because I was working my way through in order, such as Sugar's albums which only had Rykodisc noted as their label. Dyaimz (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you only found 51? Now I'm not supporting this, but won't it be better just to work the chronological list instead of random band albums? Rocket000 (talk) 08:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete or replace the prev/next links with a single link to a list of CRE catalogue articles. The order seems kind of arbitrary - it's not Egyption Pharoahs or Holden Commodore models, where people may actually care what came before or after the current one. -- Mark Chovain 03:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've established that whether people care is not the issue. Would you like me to nominate the holden template for deletion just because I don't care about holdens? (Obviously I would create a sockpuppet first, so it wouldn't be too obvious ;^) ) Dyaimz (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Can't see what deleting this template would achieve - while we're at it someone should reinstate the Factory template if it's been deleted. This sort of thing is almost as ad as vandalism in that the majority who like a template say nothing but one person decides to delete it and then it's just luck whether people who care actually visit a page it's used on during the short space of time the debate about deletion is open. In my opinion. Anyway. Cavie78 (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review is over there, if you want to reinstate the Factory template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]