Talk:Skin Yard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• What I'm trying to do is make one, good sized article that is informative and organised. Please have patience and vision. Please do not revert what I have spent a lot of time working on without discussing first, here. Thank you. --Silversmith 12:21, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
• I have also fixed all the links so that there shouldn't be any broken ones or double redirects. --Silversmith 12:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that Silversmith's formatting of this article looks good and works well for this band. Brookie: A collector of little brown things 07:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The albums

Silversmith, could you please explain why you redirected all the albums to here? There's no reason to do that. -- Mike Garcia | talk 22:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Death to stubs! This article is very short and uninformative at present. It would have something approaching a reasonable amount of information in it if the info on the albums were merged into it.

Put it this way: if this were a reasonable-length article with all the info, would we ever break it up into annoying little stubs? No, never. I vote we make it all one article. Someone like Mariah Carey can have an article for every album, or even every song, but this band should settle for just one. Chameleon 22:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• The album articles are no longer redirected here as you undid the redirects, and I won't re-do them without discussion first. But I feel this article is much better as it is, it was just a stub before, and unless you or someone else suddenly comes up with a lot of information on the band, there is nothing wrong with my version. It also makes it easier for anyone who wants information on the band. If you look at some featured articles, you will note how large they are, how detailed, and how they haven't been broken up into individual "stubish" articles. example --Silversmith 22:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

• Actually yes, there is something wrong with your version: Please do not un-redirect all the albums, why? There is nothing wrong with them. Don't have me report you here! -- Mike Garcia | talk 14:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Mike, you need to explain yourself more fully. You haven't replied to anything I said. Chameleon 14:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Also note Save Ferris an article on a band which has all the album information on the one article, as I'm trying to do here. So I've found a precedent. By the way Mike, I found it looking through your album list.

[edit] Logic

The lead of this article explicitly states that the band hasn't mainstream success. So let's step back and ask basic questions.

1. Will folks who do not own it have heard of a particular song or album and need a discussion of the importance and significance of it?
2. Is any given album or song significant and notable enough to survive a VfD vote?
3. Is any album influential enough that it is cited by other bands (without reference to the group) to a point where the function of that album in history needs to be discussed outside of the context of the band?
4. Is there enough to say about any album that combining the material here gets the article over 32 Kb? Is putting all information here something that makes the article unusable?

If there aren't clear "Yes"es to these questions, then there is no debate, at least for me: simply from the point of logic and ease of use, all of the albums should be discussed in the context in which they will be sought and in which they illuminate the subject. I.e. they should be all in the band's article (or not exist at all). Is there any utility for a stub here and a stub for each record? Is there anything gained that way? Is there any loss that's prevented that way (assuming the redirects are valid)? If not, it's just a matter of logic, as well as preserving name space, to put them all together. Furthermore, if it comes down to asking for mediation, I'd have to say that right now it looks like those who want all the albums in one place are asking for discussion and reasoning on the talk page, while the person who does not is responding only with threats. This is not good manners and bodes ill. Geogre 20:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)