Template talk:La Machine
Confusion?
[edit]This navbox seems to be confusing La Machine and Royal de Luxe. The two are separate companies, and the The Sultan's Elephant and Sea Odyssey: Giant Spectacular are nothing to do with La Machine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- So rename it to {{Navbox Delarozière}} Andy Dingley (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- François Delarozière has nothing to do with Royal de Luxe, The Sultan's Elephant, or Sea Odyssey: Giant Spectacular either, so I don't see how that would help. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed all the Royal de Luxe content. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand the politics here. I don't understand the current split between La Machine and Royal De Luxe. However up until 2008, he was (AFAIK) the technical wiz behind both. Then there was some split, for reasons and with repercussions I don't even want to care about.
- I created this navbox because of the run-up to Liverpool and the realisation that WP's coverage was fragmentary and impossible to follow. A small start on that is a navbox to at least link the articles. If you want to re-arrange it all, then fine - go right ahead and sort it out. If you understand the relationship between the two groups, then all the better. But please, leave the navbox in place and leave our poor bloody readers with some way to find their way round the content. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, I can understand the need for ease of navigation, and I support your motive here. But I really don't think a factually incorrect and misleading navbox is the way to go about it. The two companies are totally independent entities, with totally independent productions, and a navbox conflating the two makes understanding worse rather than better. (Actually, as far as I know, there are two incidental connections between the two companies - both have worked with Artichoke in the UK, and both have used the same makers to build their puppets). As it stands, the various articles about the two companies and their productions have reasonable "See also" links, which looks like a fair start to navigation, but I do agree that we need better navigation. A separate Royal de Luxe navbox might be a good idea, so I may well make one of those. But I think general improvement of all the related articles is a better overall approach, and I shall attempt to do that in the near future. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- So the stories about how the first elephant got dismantled are just stories old puppetmakers tell?
- You're right - this would have been better as {{Navbox Royal De Luxe}} But it's just not true that there's no connection between the two of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- But if it was {{Navbox Royal de Luxe}}, then the La Princesse and La Machine material would be inapplicable, because Royal de Luxe didn't have anything to do with La Machine's productions. Is there something about the elephant dismantling that links the two companies? I honestly don't know. I'm genuinely unaware of any non-incidental connections between the two companies that would justify placing their productions together in the same navbox, but I'm certainly open to suggestions. Perhaps a good way to approach it is to think of a title that would be unambiguously appropriate? If there isn't one, I'd say that would suggest they don't belong together -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- PS: I actually missed "I don't understand the current split between La Machine and Royal De Luxe. However up until 2008, he was (AFAIK) the technical wiz behind both. Then there was some split, for reasons and with repercussions I don't even want to care about." earlier - don't know how that happened, sorry. I've seen nothing in any sources that connects Delarozière with Royal de Luxe, so I'd be very interested to hear of any that you might know about. But even if he was connected with both companies in the past, he still had nothing to do with the recent Royal de Luxe productions, and so he can't really be the "umbrella" subject that unites them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm just not interested. Let Wackypedia invent the world afresh in its own image, same as it always does. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm sorry you feel that way. It certainly wasn't my intention to get you to just withdraw - I'd thought we were having a healthy discussion that might lead us somewhere useful. Anyway, I'll carry on investigating these companies and see what I can find, and I'll let you know if I uncover anything we can use (and you can, of course, feel free to ignore me if you're not interested). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm just not interested. Let Wackypedia invent the world afresh in its own image, same as it always does. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, I can understand the need for ease of navigation, and I support your motive here. But I really don't think a factually incorrect and misleading navbox is the way to go about it. The two companies are totally independent entities, with totally independent productions, and a navbox conflating the two makes understanding worse rather than better. (Actually, as far as I know, there are two incidental connections between the two companies - both have worked with Artichoke in the UK, and both have used the same makers to build their puppets). As it stands, the various articles about the two companies and their productions have reasonable "See also" links, which looks like a fair start to navigation, but I do agree that we need better navigation. A separate Royal de Luxe navbox might be a good idea, so I may well make one of those. But I think general improvement of all the related articles is a better overall approach, and I shall attempt to do that in the near future. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)