R&B and Soul Music NA‑class

	R&B and Soul Music portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
NA	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Removal of entries[edit]

Discussion has been moved here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I am not exactly sure what this edit summary is getting at, but at any rate, as I said before, there are several music-oriented navigational boxes that are formatted this way without all of the entries listed having articles thus far (and they are not redlinks). And with all due respect, after reading your talk page and all the conflict (and blocks) about templates, I wonder if you will even understand where I'm coming from. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - @Erpert:, we had this discussion long ago at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_128#Navboxes_about_music_ensembles_should_list_all_of_the_band_members. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't appear that that discussion from two years ago actually resulted in any consensus (and even if it had, consensus can change). Are you going to honestly say you haven't seen any other navboxes on here without being entirely dependent on bluelinks? There is no deadline to creating bluelinked articles, you know. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no timeline but that's typically relegated to articles themselves. NAVBOXES by definition are boxes containing links to a group of related articles. If there are no links, they offer zero value to readers who may be navigating to the topic. A navbox is not a substitute for a discography; it is intended for navigation. The fact that there are many navboxes with unlinked items just means those ones weren't done correctly either. I remove or hide them as I come across them but I don't go looking for them. Per WP:EXISTING, unlinked text should be avoided. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you missed the note statement in that guideline (btw, the idea that WP:DEADLINE only refers to articles appears to be your own interpretation). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The note refers to members of a music ensemble and I did not remove any members from the group who are unlinked and don't have articles. And, sorry, but I only see mentions of articles in WP:DEADLINE, nothing about templates. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who's to say it can't include templates? Anyway, if you really have a problem with this, then wouldn't you try removing all the unlinked entries in all the navboxes in Category:Rhythm and blues musical group navigational boxes? I'm pretty sure you'd get some opposition if you did that, so why only attack this one? (Also, "it doesn't suggest that at all"? How doesn't it?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've been correcting navigational templates like this for years, so I am hardly "attacking" this one. In February 2010, I made this edit to ((Kool & the Gang)) for the same reason. I don't go looking for them, but I fix them when I come across them. I cleaned up a few more as you recommended but a lot of them in the category were already done properly. A navbox is not intended to represent an artist's discography; it serves as an aid to navigate amongst existing articles related to the topic. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        "I cleaned up a few more as you recommended..." That is definitely not the point I was making. Anyway, I don't recall ever stating that a navbox was a substitute for a discography; that seems to be your interpretation of what I'm saying. (BTW, you didn't answer my final question.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it was my inference that by you wanting to include unlinked items in the navbox that you wanted to represent the artist's discography since you think by not including songs and albums without articles implies they don't exist. So, based on that, I did answer your question. My point is that that is not what a Navigational box is for. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "I don't recall ever stating that a navbox was a substitute for a discography" are you not understanding? And even if that were what I was doing, WP:NAVBOX doesn't state anything prohibiting that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "it was my inference" do you not understand? You said "that seems to be your interpretation" and I agreed with you. And based on my interpretation, I answered your question. You act like I avoided your question altogether.

By definition, navboxes "are boxes containing links to a group of related articles". If it doesn't have a link, it means it doesn't have an article. In WP:EXISTING, it says specifically "unlinked text should be avoided". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:EXISTING does state that, but...right after that, it gives an example of a "notable guests" section, and that I can agree with being omitted because not only is the idea of being notable debatable in that sense, but said guests wouldn't have any real connection to the navbox's subject. Anyway, I'm not sure how countering WP:NAVBOX with WP:EXISTING will work after all in the long run, as the former is an actual guideline while the latter is an essay. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just AN example and I already quoted WP:NAVBOX twice above: NAVBOXES are boxes containing links to a group of related articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you described your own definition of navboxes, while I cited what WP:NAVBOX actually says...which contradicts your definition. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where in "navboxes are boxes containing links to a group of related articles" is my own definition? You haven't stated anything that WP:NAVBOX actually says, only what it doesn't say. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that you created a synthesis by combining WP:NAVBOX with the idea that WP:DEADLINE only refers to articles...thus that is your own definition. (BTW, I'm saying what NAVBOX doesn't say? What?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.