Talk:Folx

Requested move 28 February 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKay (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

---

Folx (album) → Folx – soft redirect should be replaced with a hatnote – MW_(t•c) 22:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom, as this is currently the only use of the term on enwiki. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is irrelevant here, as a soft redirect and article with matching titles existing simultaneously is erroneous; see a similar discussion at Talk:Flaunt § Requested move 7 February 2026. 1isall (talk | contribs) 23:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nomination and 1isall. Uncontroversial technical request — a hatnote pointing to the term's Wiktionary definition does not appear to be needed. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Decline folx is its own slang term in the LGBTQ+ community (see LGBTQ slang). The album title is referencing that. It should be either turned to a disambiguation page or the original “folx” page should redirect to the slang term that has a subset page on enwiki. Aradicus77 (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  A hatnote leading to that article should suffice. 1isall (talk | contribs) 15:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support, hatnote back to LGBTQ slang#General slang terms. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folx. 162 etc. (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An article about an encyclopedic topic should almost always be primary over a list of slang.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Support: per above. furthermore add a {{See Wiktionary}} hatnote. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose but make a disambiguation page at the basename, linking to both the album and LGBTQ slang#General slang terms. Given that the term doesn't have its own full page, the term can't really be the primary topic - but a large portion of the people visiting the page "Folx" are looking for the term. I'd say the safest bet is to have a dab page at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support - only one term has an article. Red Slash 18:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

If moved, what should happen:

1. folx moved to folx (term)
2. Folx (term) redirected to LGBTQ slang#folx
3. create a {{vanchor}}

If not moved

1. Folx redirected to LGBTQ slang#folx with {{anchor}}
2. disambiguated and retargeting folx (term). Check a third page: Folx-les-Caves.

however, where would a hatnote fit if moved in the visible anchor? @162 etc. @1isall @Aradicus77 @Bait30 @Howardcorn33 @Paintspot @Red Slash @Roman Spinner ~2026-15173-24 (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sample credits

The sample credits belong on the album page as per WP:TRACKLIST. Please discuss further disagreements here to establish WP:CONSENSUS against that before reverting. CC: @Kinnimeyu – MW_(t•c) 19:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

1:1 pasting my message here: the opinion still stands.

you're misusing WP:TRACKLIST and WP:AFFILIATE here. yes, these are WP:VERIFIABLE... explicitly for track lists. note i didn't take action against the unwieldy track list because its presence is valid. a 139-line granular sample list is not a track list. you wouldn't need to ask this question if WP:IINFO was properly read and interpreted: refer to point 1, "Summary-only descriptions of works". wikipedia's for summary, not a personal whosampled-like database. just because it's true doesn't automatically warrant inclusion.

also, this isn't what WP:UNDUE is for. see WP:BALASP. if the overly long track list weren't already there, your sample list alone would be double the length of the entire article. i actually checked this.

• "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

you backed up the sample list with a single citation: the bandcamp page. even with all other sources in consideration, > 90% of the sample list isn't discussed anywhere reliable.

in the future, kindly avoid edit wars (WP:EW). i will be removing the table one final time. please see WP:3RR, and consult WT:ALBUMS if you have further opinions about this matter that you want addressed. if you attempt to re-add the sample list, this will be taken up with WP:DRN. Kinnimeyu (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Scroll a little further down in TRACKLIST and you'll see that samples are included as track list information. If you actually look at the Bandcamp page you'll see that all the samples are credited. The percentage of the article that it takes up is completely irrelevant. UNDUE and BALASP are both written in the context of NPOV issues and are being misused by you here. Please show where on MOS:ALBUM it says not to include credits if they take up too much space.

In the future, please use a process such as WP:BRD to establish WP:CONSENSUS before changing the established WP:STATUSQUO of an article, rather than reverting twice. – MW_(t•c) 19:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Tagging @Aradicus77 for a third opinion on this. You can see User talk:The Midnite Wolf#WP:IINFO in Folx for the full context of the discussion. Very sorry that you need to enter after accusations of edit warring have been made lol. – MW_(t•c) 19:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I think that’s a fair point about removing the sample list. It might be better to instead note somewhere that a sample list was featured on the Bandcamp page (the Pitchfork source might mention this), or something to that effect. It seems that the most essential information for that section, based on most album pages on the site, should be the tracklist and personnel.

That said, I can understand why it was initially included here, as this is a novel album and so it can be confusing if to include the list as the samples are one of the main aspects of this record and its ethos. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

unfortunately, that's not how wikipedia works. WP:MOS is secondary to policy (WP:POL). you do not need MOS:ALBUM to explicitly state "don't make lists too long" for it to be a policy violation. WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO, along with their guidelines, were properly cited as wikipedia policy. further, if we want to argue the manual of style, see WP:DETAIL.

• "Others need a moderate amount of information on the topic's more important points (a set of multiparagraph sections)."

139 lines, at double the length of the rest of the article's text, is more than "moderate information". Kinnimeyu (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Would you be okay with Aaradicus77's compromise of noting below the tracklist that the full sample credits are on the bandcamp page? Maybe include a shorter list of only the samples that have been mentioned in secondary sources. – MW_(t•c) 19:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

yes, this is fine. Kinnimeyu (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)