Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< December 2 December 4 >

December 3 edit

Minor league affiliates navboxes edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB Team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Blue Jays franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Braves franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Brewers franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Cardinals franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Chicago Cubs franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Indians franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Nationals franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Orioles franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Phillies franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Pirates franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Rays franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Reds franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Royals franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team Arizona Diamondbacks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team Boston Red Sox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team Colorado Rockies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team Houston Astros (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team Los Angeles Angels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team Los Angeles Dodgers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team Miami Marlins (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team Minnesota Twins (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team New York Mets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team New York Yankees (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team Oakland Athletics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team San Diego Padres (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team San Francisco Giants (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team Seattle Mariners (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Team Texas Rangers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB Tigers franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MLB White Sox franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

After a brief discussion at WT:BASEBALL, these are redundant, as each Major League Baseball franchise has a main team navbox that already includes links to the team's various minor league affiliates, with correct classifications (which these navboxes also cover incorrectly, as the Class A level is actually split into 3 separate classifications). Don't need a redundant series of navboxes. oknazevad (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Per WP:NAVBOX No. 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." In each of these cases, the navboxes link to the respective Major League Baseball team's article, not a new article dealing with minor league affiliates. However, the general MLB articles already have their own navboxes at Category:Major League Baseball team navigational boxes. Delete all as redundant.—Bagumba (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Anthony Marinelli edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. This discussion has been open for almost three months and no one seems to want to touch it. It was bravely NAC'd in December, overturned on procedural grounds at DRV, and has attracted little new commentary since. Understandably so - it's very long, and much of the discussion is somewhat tangential to the subject at hand; it's not necessary for TfD to render a ruling on auteur theory. It is of note that the creation of the navbox, and its addition to articles, were disclosed paid edits. It is also of note that there were multiple notifications during this discussion made in good faith but bordering on canvassing. Numerically this is split - 6 keeps, 6 deletes including nominator - with most of the keep arguments made on utility grounds. That's a reasonable argument for a navigational element, but it's not consistent with common practice in film articles to use navboxes sparingly on film articles and to use links to soundtrack articles in navboxes for composers of multiple independently notable film scores. Additionally, in the course of this discussion, a corresponding category was created and populated to provide similar navigational value with less clutter. I find that the balance of arguments here favors deletion, but would emphasize here that the template may be restored by any admin should consensus change on navboxes for actors and other film personnel. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film scores are not appropriate for navboxes, unless they link to the actual soundtrack articles, not the films. The composer is not an "auteur" of the film. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree, in today's Wikipedia deletionist atmosphere, standalone soundtrack articles would be AfD'd (merged) into the film article and MOS:FILM#Soundtrack tells us that the film article is the preferred place for discussing the soundtrack, score and tracklist. The soundtrack/score is a creative work and is ofttimes the subject of critic's review and the nominator's Auteur theory (directors only) does not address the placement of Category:Film actor navigational boxes, Category:Film writer navigational boxes and Category:Film producer navigational boxes -- Cheers!009o9 (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We shouldn't have navboxes for everyone who worked on a film for the same reason we don't have actor navboxes (note that those in Category:Film actor navigational boxes do not link to their film credits except where they could be seen as a "team", akin to a film series) - these cause navbox bloat. What's next? Category:Cinematographer navigational boxes? Category:Film editor navigational boxes? Category:Best Boy navigational boxes? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this is such a serious problem, where can one find an essay on Wikipedia:Navbox bloat? We are talking about a 3,310 byte file that can be extremely useful to readers that can reduce the need to repeatedly load the much larger biography to obtain the same information -- instead of linking directly to the desired article -- storage is cheap, bandwidth is expensive. There are other types of collections and relationships ("teams") that readers (film buffs) are interested in, i.e., who works with whom. A reader accessing a 10 year old film article is quite infrequent and that reader is much more likely to be interested in the credits than the film itself. So, I have to ask, have you ever seen a Best boy establish WP:N? We seem to have a widely used exception to the nominator's unwritten rule where Producer Navboxes are allowed. I can't think of anything that Producers contribute artistically; however, they are generally included in the film's promotional material which traditionally reads, Starring... Directed by... Produced by... With music by... More on Navbox exceptions below. Cheers!--009o9 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, is there an example of another navbox linking articles by composer? Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes I think we are in new territory here (off-hand, I would not know how to create a search for other musical score artist templates) and the template storage area does not exist. I did not create one because the film director, actor, producer templates and even Film Choreographer navigational Navbox storage areas do not follow a very logical structure. Also, even though they are composers, the Composers category is for composers who write in notation, not the best fit for film score composers because they also produce and often conduct the music. I would preferred to have a category for musical score composers and then created a Navbox using the composer's category as the basis for the data. I was surprised that I was unable to find a top-level category for film score composers. Cheers! -- 009o9 (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
009o9, a brief search returned {{Goldenthal, Elliot}}, {{William Walton}}, and {{Michael Nyman}}. not entirely the same situation, but in the vicinity. one outstanding difference is that, for example, the links in {{Goldenthal, Elliot}} are all for soundtrack pages, and not for the films themselves. in the case of {{William Walton}}, the template is not placed on the film article pages. for these reasons, I am leaning toward delete for this one with the suggestion that a category, say "Category:Films scored by Anthony Marinelli", would be more appropriate and reduce the bloat at the foot of the film articles. Frietjes (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes It is my understanding that this is how Navboxes are supposed to work, drawing their information from categories and presenting the collection in a user-friendly format in the footer of the article. Nobody clicks through to the categories because there is no indication as to whether there is an interesting collection there. As for bloat, I see the Navbox as a bandwith saver, instead of loading the artist's entire biography, finding the desired link and then loading the film article. Instead of reloading the biography several or more times, the Navbox allows the reader to go directly to the next film article in the artist's history. I suppose I could go around and add soundtrack sections to the film articles in question if that is the outcome of this discussion. Where there is no film article, I guess I could evaluate creating a soundtrack article(s). (See {{Goldenthal, Elliot}} where Drugstore Cowboy (soundtrack) is a redirect from a deleted article -- linking to the film article is largely inevitable with the deletions squads hard a work.) With Marinelli's (this subject) album and television credits, he should probably have a more verbose Navbox anyway. Cheers -- 009o9 (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Category:Film scores by Anthony Marinelli now created and fulfilled. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we generally don't have them. See how we deal with {{Philip Glass}}, {{John Williams}} or {{Hans Zimmer}}, all much more prominent film composers. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I am seeing is other exceptions where other composers have Navboxes on Opera and Musical articles, both are stage plays where the music is not always the primary draw and when the music is the primary draw, it is due the conductor and orchestra, not the composer. No matter how well the music is written, the credit goes to the person who pulls the music all together. Is there a general rule where these other composer's Navboxes are limited to articles about aftermarket media, rather than the production (stage play) article itself? IMHO we are discussing another arbitrary tradition where these tiny little files could save the Foundation a lot of bandwidth and processing time, by getting the reader directly to the information they are interested in, rather than searching or reloading the much larger (artist's) primary article. (Additionally, if you are truly concerned about bloat, the Navbox appears to be poorly written, a collapsed Navbox should not call for the (body/list) data unless the user opens it.) Cheers!--009o9 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is because in the case of an opera or musical, the composer is one of the primary authors of the work in question. If a navbox pointed to a soundtrack article, then this would point to the work of the composer, which a film article is not. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating and populating the category.
How is this different from the film score composer? (S)he is one of the primary of the primary authors of the work in question, which is the film, if the music alone was commissioned work it would be an album, not a soundtrack. MOS:FILM#Soundtrack prescribes that the soundtrack be discussed in the film article and with the speed that new articles get deleted these days, supporting articles, such as soundtracks are pretty much unwanted by a segment of the administrative editors. This past year or so, I am literally astounded by some of the Policies that have been bent or disregarded so that useful content can be deleted to suit one editor's preference. Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simply because a film score composer is NOT one of the primary authors of a film, they are the primary author of a soundtrack to a film. If that score has an article, then we have deemed the soundtrack notable, and yes, this should be linked to from the composer's navbox, as they are the primary author of that soundtrack. If there is no soundtrack article, then we have not deemed the soundtrack independently notable from the film, and therefore it does not belong in a navbox. {{Hans Zimmer}} is a good example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure how I didn't spot this before, but I note that creation of this template and the addition of it to the film articles are marked as WP:PAID edits. This WP:COI seems to be giving WP:UNDUE importance to the subject of the navbox, as composer navboxes are not standard. On some of these articles, this is the only navbox present. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my disclosure is all over the place, but it is too easy to forget to add it to the edit summary every time. I'd prefer to have a separate account for paid editing, with a disclosure programmed into the signature, but that type of second account isn't expressly allowed, but I also do volunteer editing and improve a lot of articles with unrelated content. I guess I should have added the new stigmatized PAID (categorized) template to the Navbox talk page. In fact, until the second account issue is settled, I'm going to refrain from volunteer editing and change the signature on this account, the manual disclosure requirements are too ridiculous to try to have a dual-purpose account. Might just as well stigmatize every edit. Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Navigation should probably be updated to clarify the consensus on Soundtrack composer Navboxes in film articles. Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We had an RFC on the matter, where there was no consensus for restricting it for producers and screenwriters (although this restriction was not without its support), but film composers is a stretch too far. If we allow this, then there's nothing to stop navboxes for film editors, cinematographers, production designers, executive producers, etc, etc, which really would cause WP:NAVBOXCREEP. See also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 1#Template:Bill Conti, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 28#Template:Ilaiyaraaja Notable Film, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 9#Template:Rahul Dev Burman. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominating editor has proposed this new rule in this RFC and the proposal failed. Apparently, this is a case of WP:DEADHORSE. Additionally, Filmography navbox templates specifically exempts "creative" navboxes from the existing Actor exclusion, stating:
"Per this discussion the restriction only applies to actors. Navboxes templates for other creative such as writers, producers, etc. are welcome."[1] --Emphasis mine.
For now, I am not considering the nominating editor's edits to the subject's biography as retaliatory; however, his deletion of the Filmography and other content, where about 20 references where destroyed[2], was unsupported and the content will be restored pending the result of the article's talk page discussions.Talk:Anthony_Marinelli
This is obviously a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. An editor who has proposed a new rule and cannot live by that consensus. The fact that he has won one uncontested deletion nomination with two like minded editors does not take precedence over his failed RFC, or the existing project guidelines. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 19:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. That was a discussion regarding producers and screenwriters. There is no precedent for film composer navboxes that link to the film articles. In fact, as you can see from the examples listed, any film composer navboxes of this nature have been deleted. There is no {{Danny Elfman}}, no {{Jerry Goldsmith}}, no {{Bernard Hermann}}, no {{Howard Shore}} or no {{Alan Silvestri}}, all far more important than Marinelli. Why should we make an exception here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your actual proposal in the failed RfC:
  • "Should we restrict filmographies included in navboxes to directors for films and series creators for TV shows? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)"
Where does that specify producers and screenwriters, or any other creator for that matter? The consensus on your RfC was no on your proposed restriction for navboxes on all creators except directors -- leaving the Actors ban in place. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 20:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: Regarding importance, Marinelli and Banks revolutionized the way that film scores are composed and were pioneers in the development and adoption of a new instrument in film and music (the Synclavier) and you've removed dozens of those credits from Marinelli's Filmography. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 21:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like the Film Project may have overstepped its bounds concerning denying Actors Navboxes on film articles. Taking a detailed look at WP:ADVICEPAGE (which is a Guideline, as opposed to WP:TCREEP is just an essay):
However, in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. From WP:ADVICEPAGE page -- Emphasis mine -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 10:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly WP:WIKILAWYERING now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another essay that falls on my side of the debate (WP:WIKILAWYERING): "Use of authentic legal skills by legal professionals or other persons trained and skilled in the arts of negotiation and advocacy is welcome in proceedings of the Arbitration Committee and on Wikipedia in a variety of contexts." (Emphasis mine) You started a proceeding here that flies the the face of your failed RfC. As far as I'm concerned, I'm presenting my argument in the proper format to the proper audience, it's not like you are a newbie, your talk page confirms this and we are not dealing with article space. Now that you've even taken to editing (collapsing and recollapsing) my comments on talk pages,[3] with the heading of "Extended content", I'm pretty sure your objectivity is hopelessly impaired. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 17:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This falls under the standard use of templates to list creative works, has a source article, and in no way resembles the decision about actor templates. Dimadick (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The navbox fails several of the criteria at WP:NAVBOX and moreover their usage in this way is not typical of their usage on film articles. The director is generally considered the "primary" author and while we should make exceptions where someone besides the director could be regarded as the author that is clearly not the case here. Unless the films are musicals where the composer could be considered a primary "author" there isn't really a valid reason for linking them with a navbox. Betty Logan (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a close call, and given that a category does not replace a template in use or importance, creating templates for every aspect of a film would lay out dozens of templates per article. Scoring has major importance in films, it sets the mood of a scene and gives emotional direction to the viewer. Change a few notes or tempo and a sad or tragic scene becomes one of lightness and character-frolic. But in this instance, as Robsinden mentions, scoring templates might be best if kept to musicals, in which the individual's work is not only one of many important jobs but is central to the film's definition and concept. Randy Kryn 11:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with everything said by Randy Kryn. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am inclined to agree with Dimadick. Composers are creatives along with writers, directors and producers. I think the score performers would be analogous to the actors while the score composers are like the creatives whose navboxes we generally keep.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful template that helps readers navigate the topic. Think its time we look at what is helpfull for our users over a projects odd POV that has not passed any proposal process and clearly causes problems all over. Not sure the projects understand why it was formed...should be .here to help navigate topics under its scope...not to make barriers to navigation.-- Moxy (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not particularly an 'auteur theory' subscriber, so I object to the premise that composers (and writers) aren't central to film. Directors do not contribute to a film's music, and their templates don't link just to articles about film's direction/blocking (or a writer's template linking to articles about the film's screenplay). -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Soundtrack is an integral part of a film, and per Moxy, navboxes are supposed to... help. Montanabw(talk) 22:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that this user is going on a spamming spree and posting links to this discussion on many talkpages. Time to take them to ANI for a blocking. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was a useful notification, neutral and legitimate, not "a spamming spree", and I thank User:009o9 for bring this discussion to my attention. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I want to apologize for the total brainfart of providing convenience links when inviting the participants of the previous RfC. I did not consider the multiple notification aspect. Thank you all for participating in spite of this blunder.
IMHO the most important thing here is to have a consensus published somewhere. If certain navboxes are not wanted, it is counter productive to inform the editor after all of the work had been completed.
Finally, as I stated above, not all film scores are suitable for soundtrack albums, which are generally just an aftermarket product of DJ'd songs anyway. I think that a rule restricting composers to soundtrack articles would unfairly limit that artist's collection. Soundtrack composers are creators who are (traditionally) prominently named in movie's marquee poster and other advertisement. (I.e., Starring:..., Directed by:..., Written by:..., with music by....) They are also legally responsible for copyright. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 03:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NAVBOX because the film composer is not enough of a unifying element for the film articles to relate to each other. This template in every film article implies that each musical contribution is so unique that readers need to be given immediate access to the rest of the films to which the composer contributed. One of the stated disadvantages of a navigation template is, "Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others; be used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places; or assert project proprietorship." This particular composer, despite numerous film scores, has been recognized for just about none of them. It seems like the proliferation of this template would heighten the composer's visibility when it is not warranted. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Erik The subject's article (Filmography) was changed by the nominating editor of this TfD during the course of this discussion, removing 9600kb of information from the filmography.Diff Marinelli is credited with some higher visibility films, (The Color Purple, WarGames, Stand by Me (film), Young Guns (film)) earlier in his career in other credited capacities. Even so, Category:Film scores by Anthony Marinelli, contains 47 blue-linked films where Marinelli is the score composer. Certainly exceeding the constraints in WP:NAVBOX. The wider discussion has become, does the Film Project (or a few members) own the film articles, and if so, exactly who's Navboxes are welcome in film articles? There is currently a ban on Actors, but not other notable creators[4] the nominator of this TfD is insisting that all should be banned except directors. As I mentioned above from WP:PROJPAGE, Projects may not have the authority for blanket bans on Navboxes.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he is credited for these films, there are no accolades that show that these films' scores garnered recognition. This means no grounds to extrapolate and dump his filmography in every film article. I am saying that one could perhaps make a case for well-known film composers having their own templates, but this figure hardly qualifies. Director templates are accepted because they're at the very top of it all. I am sure among these, there is a subset of templates for work-for-hire directors even when there is no compelling reason to show such a director's filmography on every article. Templates in general lack this nuance; the proliferation of well-known director templates led to editors creating templates for all directors. I think that is the concern that Robsinden and I have, that seems to be a slippery slope. If well-known crew members that are not directors get their own template, it could easily lead to having templates for every producer, every editor, every screenwriter, every cinematographer, every costume designer, every art director, etc., all stuffed in an article's footer. Templates do not have high enough visibility nor contain any content that indicate whether or not the figures are notable enough for proliferation or if they are just being "used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places". I find the latter to be happening here; this film composer, in lacking accolades or fame (not just being credited), should not get his works sprinkled in each and every work that is often much more known for other aspects than the film score itself. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Directors are also work-for-hire personnel, the creators are the writers, cinematographers and score composers.
  1. The only thing that makes the extreme footer of an article a "prominent place" is the absence of multiple navboxes, a condition that appears to originate from the opinion of a small minority of editors -- unsupported in the MOS and elsewhere.
  2. The opinion that the footer should only contain ONE navbox, specifically directors, creates a policy which will ensure WP:UNDUE. Additionally, the navbox template (or instructions) appear to be broken and the template does not collapse when placed without others (even with inline -- see diffs). Even more weight is placed on the director's solitary collection, making them more prominent with a default expanded navbox.
  3. As for the other creators you appear perceive as "obscure topics," they are perfectly welcome in the Wikipedia WP:OBSCURE provided they are notable, I believe the threshold for navboxes is 5 bluelinks.
  4. Multiple navboxes can be nested into a single navbox, so navbox clutter is really just an example of laziness on the part of the editor that it offends.
I really did not want the subject's navbox to be the only one on the page, nor expanded by default (see diffs), I wanted to provide it as a complete collection of film-composing works in chronological-order as a navigation convenience. I contend that it is the unwritten policy/preference of a few editors, creating an absence of other navboxes, that makes this subject's inclusion appear overly prominent.-- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 18:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Directors are also work-for-hire personnel, the creators are the writers, cinematographers and score composers." With this comment, are you really suggesting that the person who composes the score for a film has more of a creative input than the film's director? This is nuts. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the discussion here has turned to the guidelines and your failed RfC there is no need for personal attacks. Citing the Auteur theory, a controversial and outdated copyright opinion of the French courts, to support an adhoc change in MOS FILM is, at best, misinformed. The Schreiber theory (2006) recognizes the that the principle author of the film is the screenwriter rather than the director. Based upon newer copyright theory, the Auteur theory is outdated, with the producer of the film being the primary copyright holder and other creators holding underlying rights:

  • The solution of granting authorship in contributory works is generally rejected, even in copyright systems such as the UK system. The reason is that it would be practically impossible and ethically difficult to deprive authors such as screenwriters and musical composers of authorship of their works.
-- Pascal Kamina, Film Copyright in the European Union (2002), Page 167

As for the WP:NAVBOXCREEP#Steps to take argument, the first bullet states: "improve and standardize templates to reduce clutter, ease navigation, and simplify the editing process". Below is a simple wrapper for the Starwars article navboxes.

This navbox wrapper is 16 lines and a similar, a more inclusive, template for films could be worked out without instituting a blanket ban of "only directors navboxes." If clutter in the footer offends some editors, that editor can easily nest the navboxes categorically. 009o9 (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The strongest argument for deletion is that the navbox does not actually navigate to the soundtracks created by Marinelli, as found for similar navboxes such as {{Hans Zimmer}}. While the keep corner makes a good point regarding the importance of a composer w.r.t. the film as a whole, the mere existence of a composer does not seem to lend itself towards proper navigation, given that none of these films appear to have dedicated soundtrack pages. Primefac (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, this was originally closed (by me) as an NAC delete, but was overturned by an admin when taken to DRV on 18 Dec. Primefac (talk) 04:34, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_3&oldid=1076218388"