Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jax 0677

talk) 18:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

.

Jax's behavior in the discussions are often

with repetitive arguments and misintrepretions of Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Desired outcome

There need to be fewer of Jax's templates and articles being taken to TfD and AfD, respectively, so participants in those discussions (including Jax 0677) can focus on improving the encyclopedia and are not wasting time in deletion discussions. That can happen if the navboxes created by Jax are as complete as possible based on related content found in the topic article and thoroughly researched beforehand (i.e. creating articles for new navboxes before the navbox "goes live" and ensuring the article(s) can pass minimal notability requirements). The template should also be added to all articles listed in the navbox. Jax needs to become more proactive and less defensive and reactionary in supporting his aims. There is obvious growing concern among Wikipedians about his current behavior.

User should ensure the following criteria are met per

when considering creating any new navbox:

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
5. You would want to list many of these articles in the
   See also
   sections of the articles.

If the above cannot be met, a navbox should probably not be created.

While I would say the goal of a navbox on every page is a noble one, Jax 0677 is taking it to the extreme by creating navboxes even when they are not needed. Just as worrisome is the quality of such navboxes. The navboxes created are typically incomplete, insufficient, or completely unnecessary. Since February 2012, I've found 63 of his navbox creations brought to TfD, over 50 since last August and 21 in the month of March of this year alone. 10 out of the 63 have been deleted (14 are still pending an outcome), an alarming rate of both nominations and deletions. Jax has saved many of them only because he takes the time to improve them only after they have been nominated (an example of his reactionary behavior). Unfortunately, this attempt has also resulted in the creation of stub articles for albums with questionable notability to pad the navbox with links. The user needs to start taking the growing number of XfDs of his creations to heart and take a step back to understand the community's concern rather than being defensive and

.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. [1] Admission of making inadequate navboxes and display of misunderstanding of policy.
2. [2] Admission at purposely making incomplete navboxes because it takes too much time.
3. {{
   Hank Williams, Jr.}} [3]
   Creation of a navbox in June 2012 with minimal content for an artist with a large discography.
4. {{Nancy Wilson}} Creation of navbox in March 2013 (to show behavior is not changing) that can have many more articles added to it, giving a false impression to readers of the artist's full discography. By not completing such navboxes and adding them to the articles, user is neglecting goal of having a navbox on every page but not following through by doing so.
5. Discussion at different TfDs exemplifying Jax's common argument that navboxes create links where they wouldn't have otherwise, however tangential the relationship may be. Note that 2 out of 3 of these got deleted showing that the argument has no bearing on the outcome.
   • [4]
   • [5]
   • [6]
6. [7] Arguments that misrepresent policy, claiming that not including tracklists of nonnotable albums on an artist's page is
   censorship
   .

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
2. Wikipedia:Notability (music)
3. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Attempts by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

1. User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 5#Navigational boxes

Attempts by TenPoundHammer

1. User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 4#No Justice
2. User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 4#Templates_2

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk · contribs)
2. TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs)

Other users who endorse this summary

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

2. The Banner talk 22:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Gong show 00:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC) (more or less; see talkpage).[reply]
7. J04n(talk page) 10:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
8. Whpq (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
10. Nabla (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11. A troubling pattern indeed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
12. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

{Over the past several months, I have created navigational boxes regarding musicians, musical ensembles, organizations, schools, etc. The fact that many TfDs regarding my navboxes have been closed as keep is likely a reflection on people

did not exclude the parent article until after I created many navboxes. As of very recently, I have largely refrained from creating stub articles about albums, and in large part, I have placed the track listings and track lengths in the artist or ensemble article. That being said, there is a school of thought that having too many track listings in the artist/ensemble article can get messy.

Accusations about my responses being "

" and misinterpreting Wikipedia policy are largely unfounded and in my opinion, based on insufficient evidence. At this time, I will try to address all of the concerns listed in the RFC, keeping in mind that everyone, including myself, is entitled to their own opinion.

While I have little to no control over whether my creations are taken to XfD, I have as of late, tried to make sure that every link in the navbox with the exception of some related articles has that exact template in it. While I may have "screwed up" with "Template:Seals family", I have made sure that my navbox titles have their own articles. The articles in my templates refer to each other just about as much as many musical artist and ensemble album/song articles do. Besides, a decision was made not to include in a navbox films in which a person has starred.

In my opinion, "Template:Kip Moore" was the only "unnecessary navbox" that I remember creating, as the articles all linked to one another without the navbox, and were quite small at the time.

1. It is not always reasonable to contemplate every article that a navbox should contain. For example, after I completed
   WP:INVALID states "For articles and other material with the same issues , deletion is not recommended, but the actions below are". Like Template:Sonny Throckmorton, Template:War from a Harlots Mouth has four articles that do not link to one another without the navbox. User:BrownHairedGirl
   nominated "Voyeur" for deletion, but not the other four albums.
2. This article does not support the claim of "making incomplete navboxes because it takes too much time".
3. As of late, I have made sure that my navboxes are included in almost all articles that the navbox contains.
4. Oversight
5. This is a small percentage of the total number of navboxes that have gone to TfD. Template:KGC (band) and Template:No Justice did not get deleted, only Template:Mick Talbot got deleted, because he does not have a solo career as a musician. I have refrained from creating these types of navboxes as of late.
6. Including track listings and lengths was agreed to and discussed at this article.

1. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars violated WP:POINT in his edit to Template:Suns of Arqa.

1. "Template:Kevin Fowler" was kept based on having enough articles, and not having over three album track lists merged into the parent article. The mission of Wikimedia is to expand the sum of human knowledge (legally).
2. According to this TfD, "The whole purpose of a navbox is to be inserted in all the related articles to allow you to navigate between them" with ONE click. When I say that one article does not link directly to another, it is indicating why a navbox should exist. When I tried to create Declaration of Independence (album), Ten Pound Hammer redirected it to "Colt Ford" despite the fact that the album name, release date and track listing were well published on the internet.

While my navboxes have not been perfect, I feel that I have come a long way since February 2012, yet I get squacked at just because I have one link that leads to a disambiguation page. As of late, I have made sure to have at least five links total in my navbox, if not six. I have tried to make sure that every article in my navbox has that navbox in it. I have largely refrained from creating album stub articles. I hope this is acceptable.}

Users who endorse this summary:

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

1. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.