Talk:Sierra (group)

Chordant
Restored link to Chordant - released albums from several well-known groups, and should either have an article or redirect to a parent company. Please do not keep removing the link. Chubbles (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to consider writing the article then, and seeing if it passes notability scrutiny. Otherwise, having a red link there as we have had for 13 months just makes this article look bad.--VMAsNYC (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redlinks don't make things look bad. They are there as indicators that Wikipedia is not finished. If there's a consensus that redlinks are to be eliminated for cosmetic reasons, I missed it (and I hope there never is). Chubbles (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're missing or ignoring the timing element. As Red link clearly states:  "A red link ... [s]ometimes ... is useful ... to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable."  This particular red link has been red for over a year.  No page was created "soon." Furthermore, in the absence of someone creating a page and it undergoing notabity scrutiny, as I pointed out we do not know, in the words of the guidance, if "it would be notable and verifiable."  If you are a fan of the link, I would suggest that you create such an article for it now, as the avowed purpose is not to have a red link for a page that will not be created "soon".--VMAsNYC (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the label released albums from e.g. this band, Margaret Becker, Geoff Moore, Queen Esther Marrow, and The Neville Brothers, as well as albums from the WOW series, it is very likely that an article on the label would be notable and verifiable. And since notability is not temporary, the timing aspect is moot - if it is notable, it should have an article no matter how long it takes. Whether or not I personally, or anyone else, will be creating an article on it soon (it's irrelevant, but my local library's music section is closed for renovations right now), a link should be there. In any case, the amount of time we are wasting arguing about this is inversely proportional to how much it actually matters in life, and I imagine both your and my energies are better spent elsewhere. Chubbles (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the timing issue -- Red links are intended to be used, per the Wiki guidance, when a page "will be created soon". It is not intended to be used when no Wiki article is created soon.  That has been the case here.  That is far from moot -- it is the essence of the purpose of red links.--VMAsNYC (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I take the essence of the purpose of red links to be indicators of a lack of comprehensiveness. Since the basic tenet of WP:REDLINK says "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name", and since I demonstrated that such is plausible, I maintain that the red link is functional and appropriate, and that timing is not an issue. How close are we to WP:LAME yet? Chubbles (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You continue to flatly ignore the clear language of the guidance that I have twice quoted above twice. That language is there for a reason. You're addressing that by not listening is not a sign of working with others, or thoughtful consideration, but rather of turning Nelson's eye to the (for you) inconvenient fact of the focus on creating the article soon -- something that no one has done here.--VMAsNYC (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, sorry, not ignoring you or the guideline. The guideline says "Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable". Key there is the or. Sometimes it is the former, if one plans on making several articles in rapid succession; sometimes it is the latter, as an indicator that a piece of the puzzle is missing. Chubbles (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you had really believed that an article should be created for the past 13 months "because it would be notable and verifiable", it stands to reason you would have created such an article. Redlinking it and leaving it to lie fallow for over a year raises a presumption of lack of notability, verifiablity, or that it is not an article that "should" be created.--VMAsNYC (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not at all. It's not my responsibility to write an article for everything that needs one, and WP:REDLINK places no burden on me to write one when I create a redlink. It merely states that I may create redlinks, if I wish, for articles I am soon to create, and that this is one function of a redlink. My reasons for not creating may have nothing to do with your presumptions - lack of expertise in the subject, for instance. (I created a redlink for The Poverty of Historicism in hopes that someone who is well-versed in the history of philosophy would create one. It took well over a year for that to happen.) As I said before, my local library's music department is closed, which hamstrings my ability to write articles on record labels (and oh, would I ever like to just do it and end this frivolous debate), but, also as I said before, that is irrelevant, and I need do no such thing to "prove" the legitimacy of the link. Anyway, this exercise in WikiLawyering is fast becoming tiresome, and I hope we can put this to bed soon. Chubbles (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)