Talk:Kingsized
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Georgia International Horse Park linking here...
[edit]Evidently this incoming link was intended for Kingsized (band) not this album. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've fixed the incoming link, but it illustrates that there's unlikely to be an absolute topic for a term as generic as kingsized. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- The band doesn't have an article; it redirects to the most notable person from it. Do we always have to disambiguate things on Wikipedia if the other thing is not notable or at least just as notable as a band that didn't have an article made for it before the album did? Ss112 07:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Why does the band having or not having an article make any difference? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Guidelines say to check for content in other articles before occupying primary topic real estate. In this case the user who created the album didn't check for incoming links to the spot, or what else was in content in articles or in books. But more to the point, are any of the unsourced album stubs for this indie band up to WP:NALBUM? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not having a debate over whether the topic or related links are notable. I don't really care about that, but my opinion is obviously somebody cared more about the album to create it before the band had an article made for it. Ss112 07:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you're not looking at the articles to assess notability, then that's an incomplete view of the article. You don't then object if I put a prod on the article? (sorry I will be away from PC for a bit soon). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't create it so I don't have much personal investment in it, and you could have done that already. However, personally I don't agree with its deletion. Ss112 07:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you're not looking at the articles to assess notability, then that's an incomplete view of the article. You don't then object if I put a prod on the article? (sorry I will be away from PC for a bit soon). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not having a debate over whether the topic or related links are notable. I don't really care about that, but my opinion is obviously somebody cared more about the album to create it before the band had an article made for it. Ss112 07:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Guidelines say to check for content in other articles before occupying primary topic real estate. In this case the user who created the album didn't check for incoming links to the spot, or what else was in content in articles or in books. But more to the point, are any of the unsourced album stubs for this indie band up to WP:NALBUM? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Why does the band having or not having an article make any difference? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- The band doesn't have an article; it redirects to the most notable person from it. Do we always have to disambiguate things on Wikipedia if the other thing is not notable or at least just as notable as a band that didn't have an article made for it before the album did? Ss112 07:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I've fixed the incoming link, but it illustrates that there's unlikely to be an absolute topic for a term as generic as kingsized. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)