Template talk:Michael Nyman

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this template or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Red links[edit]

This template has many, many red links! This really isn't what navigation boxes are for - they should be for navigation. Can we remove all the red links please and make this box more manageable? Thank you and best regards. --Klein zach 04:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The red links are gradually being taken care of. It is a lot of work, and no one else on the Michael Nyman e-mail list seems to be a Wikipedia editor, so it appears I'm doing this on my own for the time being. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've referred this to the Contemporary Music Project. They've just been discussing another navbox like this. --Klein zach 02:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody there now, but this is what Wikipedia:Navigation templates says:

Red links should be avoided unless they have a chance of being developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encourage to write the article first.

So can you please remove all them? You can put them in your userspace - that's the best place for them. --Klein zach 05:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it easier to write the articles if they are already there and in the correct order. I have been averaging at least one new article off the template per day. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why don't you do this on your userpage? That's what everybody else is doing. --Klein zach 04:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because if it's on my user page, it pretty much guarantees that I'll be the only one who works on it. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. It's for the readers - for their convenience, not that of editors. I've removed the red links. --Klein zach 13:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott, Wikipedia:Navigation templates rules stated clearly that “Red links should be avoided” – it was made for reason. I have made many templates and I understand your notion. When I first joined Wiki, I used to "keep" red links in my templates, because it is easier for me to see which articles to do next. But, on the other hand, “red links” make the article look incomplete, not to mentioned, some nasty readers would probably click on them and fill them up with junkies. You have done a great job for Nyman’s article and the template but the “red links” made it look awfully bad. I have removed the red links, now they all appear “black” (I have double check to confirm that no titles are deleted from the list). When you have done with the article, you can add a link for it. I hope you will not undo the removal that I have made. Articles we wrote in here are not for us or can be claimed as our own accomplishment but for readers out there to read. I have removed many redlinks and will keep removing it whenever or wherever I see them. Thanks.- Jay (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coherence issue[edit]

Now we've dealt with the red links, we have the problem of the coherence of the box and whether it is too big. As one person has said here, " . . . this one seems too difficult to navigate and would best be split up into smaller categories. . .". There is also the problem of duplication with the opera navbox. What would be the best way to approach this, I wonder? --Klein zach 09:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing up the issue. Take a look at opera articles for example. The template has a section Additional Opera but where are the rest? I had to review the tiny titles one after another, spotted them listed along with non-opera articles under section Nyman-produced Albums. This is confusing and not a good navigation box at all. I would suggest for Opera articles to be taken out of the template since Opera nav template has been created - Jay (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, the "Nyman-produced albums" contains every album Nyman has been directly involved with as a principal artist, other than original collections on which he was involved on only a track or two. The second category contains only two albums that are entirely Nyman's music, Taking a Line for a Second Walk and An Eye for a Difference. The latter is a tribute album by London Saxophonic, which contains only one previously-unrecorded work, "Plotting for the Shopkeeper" (1980). I put Taking a Line for a Second Walk in the second category because Nyman did not produce the album, or write liner notes, or do anything other than license his music to be perfromed. If we remove the opera albums from the list of albums, the omission would, I believe, create even more confusion.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Album links[edit]

In the section on "albums to which Nyman contributed," we have links to Pick It Up, Moving On, and Visions, all of which are disambiguation pages. It is impossible for any reader to locate which, if any, of the albums in question Nyman contributed to. --Russ (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monster box - time to split it up?[edit]

This is probably the largest navbox I've ever seen. It's really much too large to be useful for navigating. My suggestion would be to split it up into at least three different boxes. Best. --Klein zach 05:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Other people" section[edit]

Except for Molly Nyman, Michael's daughter, most of these other people are former members of The Michael Nyman Band. The new structuring obfuscates this fact. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]