Talk:The Voice

Clean up was inappropriate

This is a DAB page, governed by WP:MOSDAB. The "redundant" information stays. In fact, more should be added to many of the entries. Also, several entries were deleted improperly. Choor monster (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Musdan77: May I suggest you make less sweeping changes, and discuss what changes you think are right? Some of your changes are definitely right, some are definitely wrong, some might be in-between, and as such, you should slow down, get section by section discussion, and proceed section by section, instead of this all-or-nothing sweep approach you are taking. You know, WP:BRD. Choor monster (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Choor monster, first, I didn't know about you're first post here before I made my last edit. You could have pinged me then (or left a note on my talk page).

Second, when a user with a red name that I'd never seen before (not to mention the name itself) completely reverts my edit (which can show a lack of good faith and disruptive editing), giving a pretty lame explanation, I naturally assume that it an inexperienced editor, who doesn't know what they're doing or talking about (at best).

Third, you keep generalizing and not specifically saying what you have a problem with. What "valid content was removed"? And if "some of the changes are definitely right" the why do you keep reverting it all back?

Now, as I said, my changes are according to MOS which says,

• "Put the target link at the start of each entry." (Radio and television section)
• "Don't include entries without a blue link."
• "Keep descriptions short." (which would include not repeating what's already in the link shown)
• I also removed content not supported in the linked articles, and organizing alphabetically.

--Musdan77 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry my preference for no User-page whatsoever misled you.
  • I also apologize for not pinging you right away: I assume you'd figure it out from your Watchlist, which tags both the dab page and this talk page. I do not think my explanation was "lame", just too short, as often happens in edit summaries. In retrospect, I agree I was too blunt overall, and I (last time) apologize for that too.
  • As an example of something you removed that is RS-verified, there is Roger Huston. As for something you removed that is not RS-verified, there is Alan Rickman. I would recommend non-verified people and the like be listed here on the talk page, not just erased. It certainly seems plausible, but just Googling is going to give 1000s of useless pages. It's the sort of thing that deserves a citation-needed tag, but we can't do that on a DAB page. Saving it to the Talk page (at the top) seems an acceptable compromise.
  • Overlap in the blue-link parenthetical dab is neither right nor wrong. You are correct that it is redundant, but it is natural for people to skim down a DAB page looking at just the black-text descriptions, looking for the knowing detail. Removing the album information completely as you first did, or just giving the year, as you did second time around, is actually not as readable as what exists now.
  • I agree with your putting nationality after the links is what the guide recommends, but this might be a case where IAR applies. Remember, the #1 concern is helping readers navigate to where they really want to go, and that should take precedence over using the format that almost always helps the #1 concern. In this case, it seems more like the list of people, for which it would be user-hostile to give an entry like "The Voice", a nickname for [[So-And-So]]. I have no strong feelings about this, but I'd be happier if you gave it a thought first.
  • Were there red-links/non-blue-links that you removed? I don't recall seeing any, but I didn't check carefully.
  • Things needed: even the really famous people should have a short descriptor, including DOB, etc. Choor monster (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)