Talk:George Duke discography

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Duke discography article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Discographies

This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.DiscographiesWikipedia:WikiProject DiscographiesTemplate:WikiProject DiscographiesDiscography

Jazz

	Jazz portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music List‑class Low‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music
List	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Request for comments

The consensus is against including a link to Album#Studio in this article per WP:OVERLINK.
Cunard (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone explain to me the problem with linking Album#Studio in this article? Using this page's history as a reference. Is it okay to link it? Horizonlove (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not important enough to merit such brouhaha. Linking to the article "Album" or to the section studio album of that article amounts to little difference. Linking to the latter is certainly not a case of overlinking, since the practice of overlinking refers mainly to the practice of placing in an article "an excessive number of links". Stay calm and keep up the good work, ladies and gentlemen. -The Gnome (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: Is it okay for me to link it back? Horizonlove (talk) 08:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No link per WP:OVERLINKING. The guide at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking says we should link technical terms and anything that will increase reader understanding of the topic. All of the readers who are interested in the George Duke discography will already be familiar with the concept of an album recorded in a recording studio! Nobody will ever click on this link. Binksternet (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the "guide at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking says we should link technical terms and anything that will increase reader understanding of the topic.", then what you are doing is counter-productive because you keep removing the link. As The Gnome stated, this is not a case of overlinking. Please stop being so disruptive and combative. Horizonlove (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your stance is that a "studio album" is too technical for our readers to understand at the first instance it appears? If so, I have nothing more to say. Binksternet (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then go ahead and remove the links from Beyonce discography, and then see what kind of response you get from the people who edit that page. You just need to stop making excuses about your disruptive behavior. The Gnome stated that it is not a case of overlinking as you stated. So now you're trying to find another reason to remove it. Furthermore, neither you or I speak for "our readers". Horizonlove (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: Greetings. You claim that "[a]ll of the readers who are interested in the George Duke discography will already be familiar with the concept of an album recorded in a recording studio" but how exactly do you presume this? Why do you presume that every Wikipedia user who looks up the entry for "George Duke" is familiar with his music, with music in general, or with the recording business? I understand that you object to the sub-link on the grounds of the Wikipedia rule about overlinking. It is up to you to produce the text from that rule that is relevant to your objection. As far as I'm concerned, there is none - and, if I may say so, you seem to protest too much on a rather minor issue. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The Gnome. Horizonlove (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards not linking. First off, I should note that this is not really the most appropriate use of the RfC process, not so much because of the triviality of the disputed content (though the difference in content is incredibly trivial) so much as because no previous effort seems to have been made to resolve this matter before calling in additional community members. That said, my impression here is that either option is more or less reasonable. Contrary to The Gnome's assertion, WP:OVERLINK is less about the proportion of terms linked in an article (though this can be factor that influences the call on a particular item) and more about the utility/necessity of an individual link. Common terms likely to be known to the average reader are typically not linked. At first blush, I had intended to say "lean towards linking" because I thought maybe our article on "studio album" would contain specific insights into the recording industry that might distinguish it from the more general "album", which surely is a term that pretty much each and every last reader coming to this article (or indeed, just about any article) will know--if you are enough a member of the modern world to have the use of an internet connection, you surely know what an album is, regardless of how much of a music buff you are or how familiar you are with George Duke's work. But here's the thing, we don't actually have a "studio album" article. That term WP:redirects to album. So I agree with Binksternet here: this is a pretty classical example of WP:OVERLINK (the term that is the actual subject of that article couldn't be more likely to be known by the average reader if it was the word "novel" or the term "television show") and I believe that they have policy, community consensus, and common sense on their side. That said, I don't think it's worth arguing over. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me just point out that the link to "[studio] album" does not redirect to the article "album" but to a subsection of that article, i.e. to "Studio album" under the section "Types of album". This is indeed too trivial a point to argue about (and create a whole RfC about) but perhaps the profession of one of the two opposite parties in this (Binksternet, according to his personal page, is an audio engineer) is behind the intensity of the disagreement. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hmmm, for whatever reason I didn't get piped to the section. Knowing there is a section that could be linked to does make this an even more borderline case. I'm willing to flip a coin and share the result, if the parties want. ;) Snow ^{let's rap} 09:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is truly a minor, minor issue, which I'd speculate escalated on account of what I wrote, i.e. the profession of one of the two parties involved. Flipping a coin sounds about right - but let's not rush this RfC just yet. :-) Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not link; it's standard practice here that we do not link to everyday words that are already clear in the context, unless there's a very good reason to do so. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.