Talk:Jock series
Latest comment: 2 months ago by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars in topic Proposed merge of Jock Jams: The All-Star Jock Jams into Jock series
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Proposed merge of Jock Jams: The All-Star Jock Jams into Jock series
editContents of The All-Star Jock James article are more about the Jock Jam series than that specific volume. With little coverage of other volumes in the series, merging just the pertinent info of each here seems reasonable as well. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I don't think a merge would be appropriate. I'd argue a nitpicking of specific "Jock" topics be merged and included into this Jock article, but the overall merging/removal of The All-Star is not appropriate, as it seeks to be an info source for one of the worst reported on/covered Jock releases. It took me centuries to even get an archived Billboard 200 page to reference for the one week it was at #188.
- But, as the creator of the page, I can agree my original writing can be fixed/merged for overall jock-related topics, specifically Jock Jams: The All-Star Jock Jams Legacy section. That original writing was used as a catapult point to get the page out of drafting and actually published, due to repeated claims of "Notability Concerns"
- I am completely open to ideas, but I think wholesale movement/merging of the articles is not appropriate, but merging of specific information/paragraphs may be ChemicalBear (talk) 04:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to much significant coverage for the All-Star volume. Making the charts is not in and of itself an indication of notability. Discussing the overall impact of the "Jock" brand could be the best way to develop this primary article and give the relevant coverage of each volume. On their own, none really offer anything more than a track listing. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, we can trim All-Star to the level of all 5 volumes (which was the original draft idea, to which I was told "Not notable"). Again, I have no issues taking Downfall and Legacy sections that apply more broadly to the "Jock" series and apply them to the main Jock page that list all the volume pages. But again, I think it would be bad/disingenuous to remove Vol 6 when all other Vols exist on Wikipedia, especially since significant coverage of the album is very scarce and hard to come by. ChemicalBear (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- My overall suggestion is to redirect all the volumes to the main page and just discuss the series as a whole there. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, we can trim All-Star to the level of all 5 volumes (which was the original draft idea, to which I was told "Not notable"). Again, I have no issues taking Downfall and Legacy sections that apply more broadly to the "Jock" series and apply them to the main Jock page that list all the volume pages. But again, I think it would be bad/disingenuous to remove Vol 6 when all other Vols exist on Wikipedia, especially since significant coverage of the album is very scarce and hard to come by. ChemicalBear (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- There doesn't appear to much significant coverage for the All-Star volume. Making the charts is not in and of itself an indication of notability. Discussing the overall impact of the "Jock" brand could be the best way to develop this primary article and give the relevant coverage of each volume. On their own, none really offer anything more than a track listing. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)