Template talk:Neal Morse

Jesus Christ: The Exorcist and The Great Adventure
my latest attempt to re-update the template has been reverted again by you, but this time you didn't provide an edit summary. Would you mind explaining your edit? Victão Lopes Fala! 18:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When reverting poor edits, I have a button that just reverts and states " Reverted 1 edit by {editor} (talk) to last revision by {editor}". That is the edit summary. Compare that with the "2019-03-17T03:06:26‎ Firstlensman" edit summary. That is no edit summary. Why you keep adding the same unnecessary and inappropriate content; when you ignore WP:BRD; when you think you know better than an editor who had been doing this for more than a decade, it's a problem. Do not add content to navigation templates that do not have articles. It's a waste of everyone's time. A reader can't navigate to the content, so it's just taking up space. While I pointed you to an essay, it's standard practice. If you want to ignore the advice I'm offering you, feel free to reach out and waste more editors' time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Calm down, my fellow been-doing-this-for-more-than-a-decade editor. Edits don't magically become "poor" or "inappropriate" just because you disagree with them. Anyway, apart from that essay, do you have any actual policy to back up your edits? Or better yet, about that same essay, could you explain what part of "Adding red links to navigation templates is tolerated when the missing article(s) are part of a set or series, and the template mostly consists of blue links to real articles (or article sections)" reads as "do not add article-less items to navigational templates under any circumstances"? If you see this as just a "waste of everyone's time", feel free to focus on other areas - I'd hate to be a thorn on someone's side. Victão Lopes  Fala! 19:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Was I writing in a way that wasn't calm?
 * I did not state that they were "poor" or "inappropriate" just because I disagree, it's that the community disagrees with them. No policy either, simply a community agreement.
 * That addition seems to be related to WP:REDLINK. Is there a hope this album will become notable? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure if there's such a widespread agreement, because I'm not usually reverted when doing that. Notice that some band members don't have articles either and we still keep them in the template. I would say the albums are already notable, like most of his albums are, specially the more recent ones. They're actually on my list of articles to create, but there are quite a bunch waiting in line before them and I've been busy in real life lately, so it's not happening soon, I'm afraid. I'm actually surprised nobody has created them yet. Victão Lopes  Fala! 16:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You not getting reverted when making similar edits does not imply that there isn't a widespread agreement; it may just be that no one watches the templates that you tend to edit. If the albums are notable, WP:WTAF has the answer. I understand that you're busy though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually only you and another editor have ever reverted me for this, in a total of 4 or 5 occasions, maybe. I'm aware that WTAF has the answer, but it kinda has the answer for both our views. I intend to start a discussion at WikiProject Musicians because I would really like to see how others interpret this. It would be nice if you could participate. Victão Lopes  Fala! 16:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So you have been reverted by others. My previous comment stands: it may just be that no one watches the templates that you tend to edit. Feel free to raise it at those projects as I watch most of those talk pages as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been over a month and only one additional editor commented, so from now on I'll stop contesting reverts on this matter. Victão Lopes Fala! 17:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)