Template talk:Madonna

message: Before placing album cover images on a navigation template, please read Fair use, Template:Fair use and Template:Album cover, and note that Wikipedia is attempting to cut down use of "Fair use" images.  Please discuss the issue here or at the other Template talk pages.  Jkelly 23:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Album cover images 

message: What is the criteria for putting a song in the "Greatest Hits" section of this template?  Jkelly 01:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the Madonna discography. The criteria is 1. a good chart position (national or/ and international) and 2. a good overview of her musical recordings. I didn't create it, but i like this selection. It considers all albums and mentions the hits. If you ask because of "Hung Up": It's #1 in many countries including Netherlands, Turkey, Yugoslavia and propably next week in France, Germany, UK...) --Red-Blue-White 03:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Greatest Hits section

message: I merged the templates Template:Madonna singles and Template:Madonna --Red-Blue-White 23:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now very, very big.  Jkelly 00:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah! ;) But it's complicated to use 2 different templates for Madonna's singles and albums. I'm sure it's possible to arrange it a little bit clearer. Or to separate albums and singles templates. Then put the album template to the albums and so on. What do you think? --Red-Blue-White 00:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with something like :Template:Michael Jackson.  I prefer using Categories to navigate, myself.  Jkelly 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Artist page | Discography | Albums | Singles | Movies | Triva | Achievements/awards
The Madonna discography is much bigger than the MJ one - and it's still growing. If we use the small categories template, it's the same like the "see also" section - (or the categories at the bottom) The actual template is much bigger - but I think it's more comfortable to find albums and singles with one click. Other sites (Star Wars or Lemony Snicket) have much bigger templates. It's on you. --Red-Blue-White 05:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, I'm just expressing a personal preference for smaller templates.  I'm not going to tear up all of your work just because I happen to like smaller templates.  Jkelly 22:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it big ;) The greatest hits template wasn't wrong - but it's incomplete - and it's hard to use 1 template for this song and another template for the next song. Let's look at other articles. Maybe we find another (smaller) template that's better for Madonna.  --Red-Blue-White 00:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates merged

message: Does this template really need to take up half of each article page?  It just seems so silly to include every album and book when anyone can just click Madonna discography or Madonna bibliography and find all of the albums and books there.  Sure, it's an extra click of the mouse, but at least the template doesn't look like it's about to explode.
The videography section of the big template especially irritates me.  Most of those articles have only small sections on the music videos.  If we're going to keep the big template, it would make more sense to have a section of singles than music videos.
Anyway, thoughts? -- Charity 00:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: I'd question the inclusion of this in the template, as it's not a significantly different item to the regular Immaculate Collection (and doesn't merit a separate entry away from that title). Everything else in the other compilations category has a significantly different track listing to its 'parent' item and has its own separate entry, so I'd be inclined to drop this. Thoughts? Gusworld (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, three weeks have gone by and no-one's offered any objections, so I removed it. Gusworld (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And then ten days later it's been restored with the comment "The Royal Box is a relevant compilation". I don't want to start a revert war here, so I'll pose the same question -- how justified can the inclusion of this compilaton on the template be when it doesn't actually merit a separate entry, but merely a note as a differently packaged edition of the Immaculate Collection? Gusworld (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Box 

message: And music video DVDs. Surely these sections aren't necessary. 99.135.13.124 (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music video singles 

message: Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography navbox templates, we do not have filmographies for actors in navboxes.  Only her directing roles should be included.  No other actors have acting navboxes, and there is no case for exception to be made here.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No other actor have acting templates? Have you seen , , ,  (which you removed) etc. the list goes on and on. These are not just Navbox actor templates, so please do not categorize them as one. And the consensu implies to solely actor templates as well as their deletion discussions. If you want raise a discussion at the appropriate venue for including other templates as well like this. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing those out.  I've removed the filmographies there too.  You are mistaken in your interpretation - we do not allow filmographies for actors in navboxes, regardless of whether that is a section on a navbox, or a dedicated navbox.  I hope you'll self revert your edit on this template.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So what are we to do here with the edit warrior? Editor does not care about BRD...just keeps reverting saying its consensus but not able link to any policy or guideline? They seem to be saying they dont want to see lots of navboxes at the main articles..but this is not the case here....no template spam.  Its hard to move forward when someone does not follow our basic behavioral expectations.  What are we to do when editors do not care about what other projects think is best for the topic they cover??  Its concerning that the film project is getting a bad reputation over this simple edit...for so long it was all fine till recently with project creeping.    -- Moxy (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the disruption. Moxy please do so when you find it in other places. A single editor's biasness without any clear cut consensus is not accepted. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to editwar....I am only here talking because I am a participant of the council where this has come up in the past. I am  here to make sure big projects dont cause little projects problems for no reason. I do see a local consensus not to have devoted navboxes for films or to have navbox spam on film articles....but this is not the same as no movies in any navboxe.  I am here to point out our policy on the matter ...or in this case lack there of. I happened to be not a fan of template spam as see at the "Awards and achievements" template at  Michael Jordan#External links. But again this is not the same as total exclusion of one type of article. I agree there is no need to template boom all the articles linked in the templates...but this is not the same as a template made for a parent article on an individual. Just need some common sense applied to template insertion.  Perhaps I should bring this to the wider community....as ts clear not all are seeing the same thing.   -- Moxy (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the main problem. There was no clear cut consensus, I re-read the whole discussion again. And these are not even actor articles, these are primarily singer articles, who all happen to be acting as well. I absolutely fail to see how its inclusion is detrimental in the Navboxes, while adding them as part of the project is. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 17:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree linking to a bunch of templates that got deleted is not clear cut consensus even for the project. Not to many content editors hangout at the deletion-est  venues to even notice this is happening to begin with. Trying to stop template spam is a good thing in my eyes...just not good when its done in a manner that is pissing people off. We need all types of editors and all are very welcome ..but  have to remember some are here to add content and help people find that content while others are here to build a beautiful looking encyclopedia...this causes conflict.   Just need to find a nice median....in this case I would say let the music projects have there links they wish ....but dont spam the templates in the films. The spamming of templates seems to be the motivation behind the projects POV on these....in my POV its a losing battle that will just cause us to loss new editors.  However that said if they think its best to not be normal they can do so...just cant tell others they have to do the same. - Moxy (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: O well not much can be done here with an editor that does not  follow BRD after being asked to do so many times. So what to do with an aggressive editor?  Lets first try to get  others involved before a blocks are handed out.  Lets write a RfC see if others think this project creeping is ok. -- Moxy (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

text: You actually agreed to the removal, then changed your mind when Moxy gave you a misleading opinion that somehow singers were exempt from the longstanding consensus.  This has been pointed out as an erroneous assumption by User:Lugnuts here and User:TonyTheTiger here.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filmography section