Talk:Green a.Live

= Succession boxes = I personally don't see a problem with this, but after repeated attempts of removal I'll just create a discussion page over here and duke it out. Cooldra01 (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted on your talk page, this debate has gone on for over two years and it has been impossible to reach a consensus, ultimately culminating in a request for comment in January 2011. Links to the lenghthy history can be found here, while the RFC is located here. Because of this lack of consensus, very few articles have had succession boxes added to them since then, so why should this one article have it? We know it went to number one because that's what the chart section tells us, there's no succession box for "Bo Peep Bo Peep" so continuous navigation is wasted in this article, and a more complete info on a chronology of number ones on the chart can be found at List of Oricon number-one singles of 2011. A "see also" section with a link to the list is a simple solution to those interested in the chart chronology. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence on this one, but I don't see any harm in adding a succession chart. The only downside I see is adding a few more bytes to the loading of the article, but this isn't the 90's where you could go and have a coffee before the page loaded. In answer to your question, saying that this article should not have succession boxes because other articles don't is analogous to saying I can't buy a Bugatti Veyron because others don't have one. In other words, there's no connection. Anyways, back to the main topic. Yes, indeed, a "see also" section would be a simple solution, but if a user simply wanted to see the prior and successive hits after the song, wouldn't it be easier to place a succession chart? After all, the succession chart also includes a link to the entire list of number ones at List of Oricon number-one singles of 2011. I see this as catering to both sides, and I don't exactly understand the reasoning for deleting succession boxes. Cooldra01 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The main reasons against are 1) it's not a true succession because every chart is independent of the one before and the one after, 2) there is no relationship between one number-one song and another, and 3) if you allow one, you have to allow all, so worldwide hits like 21 (album) would have 30+ succession boxes giving undue weight to something that just provides links to unrelated articles. The chart section would already show where it reached number one, so it's simply redundant. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is a continuation from User:Cooldra01's talk page. The discussion on the issue in general has gone on for a couple of years and was brought up for RFC in January. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, guys, I'm from the 3O board. It looks like this conversation is pretty much dead (the other contributor hasn't posted here in over a month), but I'll give a third opinion anyway.  I don't see the harm in including a succession box.  The "no consensus" thing is a starting point, not an ending point.  We failed to gain consensus on an overarching policy (so to speak) for these succession boxes, so, in its absence, we just have to take it case by case.  Given that, your arguments seem to be based on what other articles do or don't have, and so I'm just not very convinced by them.  The argument that we have to include either all or no succession boxes is frankly a little ridiculous.  Since when have we been required to deal in such binary absolutes? We don't really "have to allow" anything that doesn't make the article better. If someone tried to put 30+ succession boxes into an article, they would rightly be reverted and laughed out of town, but that's not what's going on here.  The rest of your argument seems to boil down to "the songs aren't related."  This is true, and I personally wouldn't find a succession box for a song interesting partially for that reason.  But, judging from the keep !votes in that RFC, some people do find it useful, so we might as well keep it.  I don't think it's going to hurt anything being in it, and if it helps other people at no cost, then that's a net positive for the article and the project as a whole.


 * I guess for me it boils down to: why should this article in particular get rid of its succession box? What is it about this article that makes its succession box particularly undesirable? People (albeit not me and presumably not Star) seem to find them helpful, so what's the harm that this one is doing to this article that outweighs the benefits? (Please note that I'm not being facetious here; it's a totally serious question!) Anyway, thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the response and your opinion and understand your reasoning (as well as Cooldra's). I think it's usefulness as a navigation tool is lost by not having it on other articles, but like you said, it comes down to a case by case basis, and since this discussion pertains only to this article, I guess it doesn't really matter. IMO, most people don't care whether they are there or not, but when they see them in one, they add them to others because 1) they think if that one has it, this one should and 2) it's easy to copy and paste a box. Thanks again. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)