Talk:Spencer Matthews

Removal of V-T-E "Made in Chelsea"
Obviously, there is a dispute as to whether or not an outlier (VTE "Made in Chelsea") should remain on this subject's page based on the relevance of its inclusion on other subject's page that were also in the show. The edit summary claims by the rv'ing editor Dismas "...this isn't used for any of the other cast for this show, I don't see the point in having an outlier". As I do see the point, in that this is not other cast member's page, and the subject already has 2 other VTE shows listed, and other subjects on these shows sporadically either have the VTE or don't; it's a matter of personal preference. In addition, an editor could merely include this VTE on other cast members' page; thus cancelling out the original summary. Bringing the discussion here for consensus rather than edit warring due to opinion. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dismas Please bring what you found here: so we are on the same page regarding WP guidelines. Maineartists (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure,, what I asked about on the Help Desk was relevant to this. I asked whether or not a template such as Template:Made in Chelsea should be put on an article which is not mentioned in that template. In other words, should the MiC template be put on the Spencer Matthews article if that article isn't in the MiC template? The answer I was given was to look at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL which states "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional."
 * I agree with that sentence since, for one thing, it keeps template-creep from happening. If we put the MiC template on every article that was loosely related to Made in Chelsea, then we did that with every other television series, film series, etc. and so on, then many many many actor articles would become littered with templates at the bottom of their article just for being loosely associated with a series. Adding the template to articles has to stop somewhere. So, why not with just those that are in the template?
 * This was an issue years ago for fashion models and categories. If a model had appeared in just one Guess? jeans advertisement, they'd get the Guess? jeans category on their article. Same with Polo, Ralph Loren, Maybeline Cosmetics, etc. For models such as Cindy Crawford, who worked for many companies, this turned into a category list with, from what I recall, literally over 100 categories at the bottom of the article.
 * So, that's my reasoning for the template's removal. † dismas †|(talk) 18:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I hear you; and agree ... to a certain extent. But to blanket WP with the prejudice of super-star celebrities such as Cindy Crawford (who would of course attract 100 of categories) in relation to very minor notable subjects such as this falls under: make the judgment call based on the relying factors, not the overall rule for the exception. In other words, when I saw this request for the inclusion, I realized that the subject had 2 other VTE listings, and this show in particular was what he is/was known for: having appeared in 11 of the 16 named series. The other 2 VTE were less of notable accomplishments. You and I both know this subject is not going to accumulate 100s of VTE. His career doesn't warrant any more; but it does warrant this one more than the others. That being said, can we agree that we either 1) add this VTE to the others (for which he is most notable) - or - 2) remove the other 2 VTE (considering he was only in 1 season of each). Honestly, I think this is a "choose your battles" in the larger picture of things; as this subject isn't going to be an example for any of the above mentioned "out of hand" scenarios. If I may be so bold, I think this may have resulted in my "resolve" to an unwanted Help Desk requesting editor. But I could be wrong. Regardless, this is hardly worth the discussion. I think we both know that. As most editor's say: "It wasn't hurting anything." That being said, I'm fine either way. Bigger fish to fry. Maineartists (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying about the relative obscurity/popularity of this person.
 * The best solution, in my opinion, is to add those cast members with articles to the template and put it on their articles. But I'm not that invested in this area of WP to go to that effort.
 * If you feel like it should be here, go ahead and put it back. † dismas †|(talk) 21:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)