Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dance Dance Revolution lists
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Marasmusine (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Dance Dance Revolution lists
- List of Dance Dance Revolution lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to attempt to an article that the navbox already takes care of. No notability what-so-ever. Obviously no potential for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bread Ninja (talk • contribs)
- Delete Most of the "Music in x" links seem to not be full articles, so this list has little use, and just links to sections in the main game articles. Such a list makes no sense, and would only work if it was a Music in Dance Dance Revolution article with a list and prose. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like a navlist, which means it doesn't need to be notable. That said, I see no reason why this can't be incorporated with List of Dance Dance Revolution video games as an extra column to point to the list of songs. It's basically a "Department of Redundancy Department" issue. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There already is a navbox though.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean anything. There can be lists, navboxes, and categories all at the same time. The point is that the bulk of the articles this list points to have been merged. Thus, it should not list them. But then the list would only have a few items that don't need a whole list article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you need to read the implication a lil more. It's not only redundant, but not needed. there's a navbox taking care of it, and are dependent to it's own article. a list of supporting material of the individual main articles seems highly unnecessary. common sense, readers would look for the main article before looking in a navlist for supporting information.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no problem having duplication between tabular page content (in this case, the list of games with this list appropriate merged into it) and navigational aids. The Navbox, for ease of use, omits details covered by the game page so if someone knows they're looking for a specific DDR game but can't tell by name alone, the table (with bluelink to list of music) would allow them to find it better. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that still doesn't explain how necessary that would be. If the Navbox does the same but the reader who's looking for the specific list doesn't even know the name. Than the navlist will do nothing different than the navbox. There's also categories to help with this.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundancy is just not a problem unless it is a WP:CONTENTFORK of prose. This is not the place to be talking about this though. The fact is that this list of lists is not needed, and we all agree on that point. Right? Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes i agree....but i'm not so sure masem does as she wants a merge as it could help navigation, but doing that will still cause the same thing this list-article is doing.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ("He" not "she" btw). I'm pointing out that we have this article List of Dance Dance Revolution video games which, given the number of DDR games out there, seems completely acceptable as a list article. It's not a well-made list and begs for improvements, but its a list where all these individually music lists can be included as a new column for each game, such that there would only be one "list" of DDR games and their music in one place. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But those are the main articles. why list the main articles, then list supporting material in the same place?Bread Ninja (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because... it makes sense? Now, let me step back and say that given the state of many of the main article games, most of the individual list articles (not this one under discussion but any of the lists listed on this list) can prbably be merged into the game article. But right now, we should assume that the editors that work on DDR had good reason that for each game, there was a game article, and a list of songs list-type article. If you are providing a navigation page for all the DDR games, and you know each has this list associated with it, there is zero harm and infinite benefit for including the list article links on the same table row as the game it belongs to itself. This removes this list article. --MASEM (t) 06:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But those are the main articles. why list the main articles, then list supporting material in the same place?Bread Ninja (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ("He" not "she" btw). I'm pointing out that we have this article List of Dance Dance Revolution video games which, given the number of DDR games out there, seems completely acceptable as a list article. It's not a well-made list and begs for improvements, but its a list where all these individually music lists can be included as a new column for each game, such that there would only be one "list" of DDR games and their music in one place. --MASEM (t) 23:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes i agree....but i'm not so sure masem does as she wants a merge as it could help navigation, but doing that will still cause the same thing this list-article is doing.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundancy is just not a problem unless it is a WP:CONTENTFORK of prose. This is not the place to be talking about this though. The fact is that this list of lists is not needed, and we all agree on that point. Right? Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that still doesn't explain how necessary that would be. If the Navbox does the same but the reader who's looking for the specific list doesn't even know the name. Than the navlist will do nothing different than the navbox. There's also categories to help with this.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no problem having duplication between tabular page content (in this case, the list of games with this list appropriate merged into it) and navigational aids. The Navbox, for ease of use, omits details covered by the game page so if someone knows they're looking for a specific DDR game but can't tell by name alone, the table (with bluelink to list of music) would allow them to find it better. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you need to read the implication a lil more. It's not only redundant, but not needed. there's a navbox taking care of it, and are dependent to it's own article. a list of supporting material of the individual main articles seems highly unnecessary. common sense, readers would look for the main article before looking in a navlist for supporting information.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean anything. There can be lists, navboxes, and categories all at the same time. The point is that the bulk of the articles this list points to have been merged. Thus, it should not list them. But then the list would only have a few items that don't need a whole list article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There already is a navbox though.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if they didn't have a good reason? not saying i'm assuming bad faith, but we shouldn't assume good reasons, along with good faith. You realize it does the same thing. A list of lists is practically WP:LISTCRUFT. We don't have to make the ultimate navigation list. If we provide DDR games, we don't have to provide the the list along side. You realize how that will look like? A list of video games, and a list of songs in the next section of those video games. its just too tedious and redundant. For one, that info is just supporting the main articles. Zero harm? one, too long, unnecessary, and the list of DDR video games isn't suppose to provide just navigation. i tihnk your missing the point to list of media articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So Masem, what exactly do you want to do? For the games that have separate song listings, we put a (Music) tab right after the name? That seems reasonable. Note that all of the links on this list of music do not have split articles, but only about 10. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why i said there is already a navbox. Plus i don't think we should merge it just for navigational purposes. we have categories and a navbox that helps with that. we don't need it listed on the list of video games. Though thinking of it now. they might not be notable to stay as a supportive article. So it's best just to delete it. Zero harm will be done if we delete thisBread Ninja (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there are only 8 music articles as seen here. I don't think it would be worth it to add links on the "List of video games" page. Could we get a quick consensus to merge the "unreleased video games" list to the main game list? Then remove the music links from the template for the ones that don't have full articles. Then this page will be deleted, and we have greatly improved a somewhat sloppy series of articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We have before, but at the time a certain editor was against it. I think this time things will run more smoothly though.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unnecessary. The navbox and the categories take good care for easy navigation. One list less to maintain. – sgeureka t•c 09:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does seem to be redundant; should focus editing on the nav box and maintaining the cats. Cool Hand Luke 14:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.