This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gonnym. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This RM has seemed to escape notice, so I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at it and offer some thoughts, as I've laid out two possible solutions on this one... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Sadly yes. Hopefully it will stay like this til the end with a 3-2 vote in our favor. Any close closing as no consensus like that will have to explain why they would disregard a community guideline which itself is a consensus for naming articles, in favor of a WP:LOCALCON. --Gonnym (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Would you categorize this as a "TV series" or a "TV program"?... Once I know that, I can move it from unnecessary disambiguation, because this looks to be the only TV show (article) with the title Trailblazers. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
So major advancement got Bulgaria's celebrity seasons and the Finnish seasons moved to correct names. Nominated the first numbered edition... Portugal's Secret Story while taking the issue of the Big Brother season templates to WP:TfD. I'm gonna hold off on the RMs for now as there are two big ones in progress. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?20:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
TBH I'll be happy once this is all done lol. I hope the Portuguese proposal generates more input from WP:NCTV before the a latter RM causes a stir about the new proposed disambiguation. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?14:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
To be honest, I have no idea. I don't see where the nowiki open tag even is. Need to ask Frietjes as she was the one who converted the code to use the infobox module. --Gonnym (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Zackmann08, the old non-infobox version showed the Total awards won and Total nominations no matter if these were empty or not. the nowiki tag ensures this happens in the infobox version. Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree, the earlier one was harder for me to read. Since template code is already a garbage of curly bracers, making even the simplest parameter unnecessary hard to read, having no spaces between anything just makes it even harder. --Gonnym (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I think I can safely answer this as I am in agreement with Gonnym on this. No we are not going to delete our opinions on the matter. If you don't want to see the templates disappear then I suggest you read WP:TfD on how the process works and also opposing something just because you don't like it is not a valid argument. If you oppose the measure that has been presented then go here and explain a legit reason for these templates to stay in their current form. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?14:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
They're not going to "delete" it – they're talking it about making it a "module" within the television infobox. But it will still "exist" and will be usable at the BB articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
"TV film" question
Hey, I'm interested in all of the examples like Savage (1973 TV film) which are disambiguated with "([year] TV film)" for my NCTV "double disambiguation" project. Do you have any regex-y tricks up your sleeve that you can use to search for and generate such a list?... 'Cos when I try a "simple search" for this, I'm not even getting the Savage TV movie example... TIA! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The good news? That does work! The bad news? Pretty much every result returned so far is for a redirect, and not for an article – Savage (1973 TV film) is the only article disambig'ed like this that I can find. And I'm not real keen on including things in naming guidelines when there's only a single example of it... Oh well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Some other reality shows with incorrect names... *cries*
@Gonnym and IJBall: While looking through template linking and transclusion check reports for Big Brother templates I found the following articles that are not in compliance with WP:NCTV and are outside of WP:BIGBRO's purview.[2][3] I'm not sure if y'all knew about these or not or if they are in the maintenance category.
Paradise Hotel (Denmark) 2009 - I recommend delete here instead of replacing {{Big Brother endgame}} en~Wiki doesn't have any other Danish Paradise Hotel articles. The main Paradise Hotel article in the "International versions" section links to da~Wiki anyway.
Star Academy 9 (France) - merge with parent article here on en~Wiki as it has more information like the winner. The individual season article on fr~Wiki is much better.
Farmen 2018 (Norway) - Norway's version of The Farm and the only season article on en~Wiki. We don't even have an article about the whole series on en~Wiki btw.
Kmetija 2018 - 9th season of Slovenia's version and the only season en~Wiki has an article on however we do have an article on the series as a whole here.
These are okay by WP:NCTV (I think?) but the article is bare bones and could be deletion or merge candidates:
Occupation Double - delete, fr~Wiki article is much better its not worth the time converting all the {{Big Brother endgame}} infoboxes to unsourced tables in the en~Wiki article.
Dilemme - borderline keep but fr~Wiki article is much better overall
TBH I'm not going to go through all of these and re-configure them for the module when there are over 400 Big Brother articles I'm thinking delete, delete, delete for some of these. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?00:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Rather than deleting, some of these can probably be just converted to redirects.
I'm thinking of starting my own reality TV show I'm a Wikipedian of Incorrect Naming Conventions, Get Me Out of Here! Seriously though I have an understanding on how El Gran Show ended up with this wacky convention after reading Bailando por un Sueño. It originated as a Mexican format that is similar to Dancing with the Stars. Essentially there are three seasons per year the top three pairs from the first two seasons will move on to the third and final season of the year to determine which pair is the overall champion that year. 2012 followed a slightly different format with one season and one special while 2017 had 3 seasons and a special. es~Wiki is breaking these out by "editions" based on year with each edition having 2-4 seasons. May need to see if me or Gonnym can find any sources on this but I'm more inclined to go with WP:NCTV house of style here based on what I've seen so far. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?01:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
As I'm sure I've stated somewhere here, all most reality series articles don't follow any guidelines or policies. I guess we'll start working on those that use the Big Brother template as we need to get that deleted soon. --Gonnym (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm all for it. Just a note though, Template:Infobox television Survivor shouldn't be what we aim for, as that infobox is also flawed. What should be done is that the Big Brother inbox should be a "child" infobox and inserted as a module into Template:Infobox television season. That way, the BB infobox still receives the full support of any update/change to the season infobox, will not cluttering it up with series specific params. --Gonnym (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah okay templates are not my area of expertise lol. Would it be possible to create a "child" infobox for Big Brother that is similar in appearance to the Survivor infobox that can be inserted as a module into Template:Infobox television season? If so can you help with that because I'll admit I have no clue what to do. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?12:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Give me the names of the parameters you want and their order. Look at the season infobox, I believe that any module infobox should start under the |starring= field and since this is a module, it will end above |country=. --Gonnym (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
So I created a list in a sandbox of mine that should fit between those two fields for each season. I was going to include a |film_start= and |film_end= for the very few pre-recorded editions (like if Big Brother China: Pilot Season ever gets its own article again) but I saw that Infobox television season already had those fields so I didn't include them. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?13:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
1 January 2018 (2018-01-01) – December 31, 2018 (2018-12-31)
Here is an example with the fields you asked for. I'd recommend you think twice if a custom label is needed. These kind of labels usually end up with garbage data. Location might also be something you can live without as other television seasons don't list where they were filmed. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Ohhh that's perfect actually! I'm not a fan of custom labels myself but there needs to be a place at least a spot for America's Favorite Houseguest (or similar prize for other editions) and trying to have a field for everyone would be too much. The location field really doesn't need to be there I just saw that from the Survivor infobox and thought it would be neat for editions that actually have the Big Brother House in a different country. Your amazing with templates! Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?14:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Gonnym So Gonnym the the discussion for the Big Brother templates has closed as successful. Could you create the module and we can begin work on doing the conversion. There are two WP:BIGBRO editors that said they would help convert articles from the old templates to the new one as well. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?23:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Alucard 16: I'm a little lost with all the various discussions this has taken place in. Do you know where we worked on the documentation? Also, I remember you working on a new table for Big Brother articles which I wanted to comment on but always forget, could you point me to that also? --Gonnym (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, found them all but the table, so just need a link to that one. Also, would you prfer the label for hosts/presenters be "Hosted by"/"Presented by" or "Host"/"Hosts"/"Presenter"/"Presenters"? --Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Lol I was just gathering this for ya then got an edit conflict message.
This sandbox has the proposals in regards to the tables. I would say about 50% already have table listing the Housemates so in that case all that would need to be done is just to add Entered/Exited/Status columns to the table similar to other reality shows. For the others that don't have a table then one would need to be added to the article similar to the Bigg Boss example.
Since the ultimate goal is trying to reduce the amount of infoboxes in the future I would suggest "Hosted by"/"Presented by" since that is what {{Infobox television Survivor}} is using.
I've added some examples on the tables sandbox. In general my note is, if you have a column that holds multiple pieces of information, then the correct way to present it, is to split it into more columns.--Gonnym (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so the template is placed at Template:Infobox reality competition season. Explanation on the name (though we've talked about this already, so just a recap) - I've used a general "reality competition" name instead of "Big Brother" as it could and should be used for almost any non-talent reality competition TV program. The "season" was added, both to fit the parent template but also, since currently there is a big brother series template, which might stay, might merge into the general TV series one, or might become a module of it, like this has.
I've added the documentation You've worked on. If you get a consensus discussion about not adding contestants to the starring fields and it passes, that should be added to the doc. I've also added your testcases. I'll see about getting the protection level of the template set. Any other issues? --Gonnym (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates and getting the protection sorted I've switched two seasons over to the module Celebrity Big Brother 2 (U.S.) and Gran Hermano VIP (season 6). I like your Alt table ideas I have a feeling TheDoctorWho may end up using it for Big Brother 7 (U.S.). I'm gonna start a new discussion over at WT:BIGBRO here shortly and ping TheDoctorWho and Oenix2nd in on it since they volunteered to help with the American and Philippine adaptions respectively during the discussions. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?14:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
What would you advise moving this to? One bona fide WP:RS, The Age, actually does refer to this as a "film". A much less reliable source, lindychamberlain.com, describes it as a "mini-series". The other sources call it neither, seeming to prefer to refer to it as a "drama".
This is going to be a recurring problem with these "TV films" aired over two nights – they're not really "TV films", nor are they "miniseries" (which generally comprise at least 3 parts)... I think in cases like these, we'll need to go with what the sources call them, and in this case, my preference would be to defer to The Age. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
To me, 2-episodes/2-parts is not really a "TV series". Luckily, in this case, none of the sources at the article use the term "series" (in reference to Through My Eyes). Thus I'm inclined to just move it to "film", if there's no objection on your part. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
On the latter, I'm not moving any articles like this until the various "upcoming TV series" actually start airing – I'm treating this as a WP:CRYSTALBALL situation until that happens (this is also why I haven't moved some of the others, like The Heights (TV series)...). On the former, it is generally agreed that "TV series/TV program" and "game show" and "talk show" are already sufficiently disambiguated from each other without the need for additional "by country" or "by year" disambig (e.g. Harry#TV shows is a good example of this). In that specific case, the game shows need further disambig., from each other, but the "TV programme" one should be fine where it is. If you disagree, you can put it through a WP:RM request. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey Gonnym on the module {{Infobox reality competition season}} could you make |num_survivors= as a switch of |num_contestants= similar to how its set up for housemates/houseguests for Big Brother? That's the only thing I can see that would need to be tweaked so that when Survivor articles use |num_survivors= the infobox will read "No. of castaways" instead of "No. of contestants". Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?03:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Gonnym, now that even Talk:Committed (Canadian TV series)#Requested move 21 November 2018 has passed, I would say there is now ample "precedent" at RM that we should maybe think about revising the "by country" part of WP:NCTV as you have suggested... So, my question is – do you have an idea of what your proposed new language would look like?... If we can hammer that out, I would support changing the guideline, either boldly, or by posting the intention to do so at WT:NCTV first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Additional disambiguation is needed when there are two or more television productions of the same type and name as (see also WP:INCDAB). The following options should help resolve the title ambiguity and should be used in a descending order, continuing on to the next option until the titles are sufficiently disambiguated.
Prefix the country of broadcast (see list of adjectives for accepted uses). Generally used when shows are distinct primarily due to region, especially used to distinguish regional versions of the same format/premise. Important: Write U.S. with periods, but write UK without periods (full stops) as per WP:NCA.
For TV series articles, use TV series name (Country-adjective TV series) as in (Canadian TV series), (UK TV series), (U.S. TV series).
For TV season articles, use TV series name (Country-adjective season/series x) as in (Canadian season x), (UK series x), (U.S. season x).
For the special case of TV season articles which have their season number as part of the season name, use TV series name# (Country-adjective season/series) as in (Canadian season), (UK series), (U.S. season).
Prefix the year of release or program debut. Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same region and/or across multiple regions.
For TV series articles, use TV series name (year TV series) as in (1997 TV series).
For TV season articles, use TV series name (year TV series season/series x) as in (1997 TV series season x), (1997 TV series series x). - currently discussed in the TNMT RM
Prefix both the year of release or program debut and country of broadcast.
For TV series articles, use TV series name (yearCountry-adjective TV series) as in (1997 Canadian TV series).
For TV season articles, use TV series name (yearCountry-adjective TV series season/series x) as in (1997 Canadian TV series season x), (1997 UK TV series series x). - depending on the outcome of the TNMT RM
If the release year, country, or a combination of both is still insufficient to disambiguate the topic, an appropriate genre or format word ("animated TV series" or "anime", "sitcom", "soap opera", "telenovela", etc.) can then be considered for use via a page move request.
As you know, I am quite opposed to including the "double-disambiguation" option in the guideline, as it will just lead to confusion with people using it in cases they should not (and there's only about half-a-dozen instances where it been necessary to use – IOW, it's used even less than the "TV special" disambiguation is!). The other issue here is that this is significantly longer than what's in the guideline now. Including some examples is probably a good idea, but this may be overkill. So I think some trimming here would be a good idea. Also, most of the "season" stuff, esp. the examples, should probably go in the 'Season articles' section. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Seriously though, why does it matter how long it is? Why is that even a factor? The question is, does the length duplicate any information or give new information? The reason this is long is because the usage has variations which come up over and over at RM and other discussions. There is no need for two "additional disambiguation" sections (which is what you are asking, if we have one for a series and one for a season). This section will come after the season section and address both (which would make the overall character count less as it saves duplicated words). Regarding the double disambiguation, we could remove it from the guideline, but that is just you burring your head in the sand. Even with your limited use of this style, it is still being done - so why not address it? Regarding the examples, we can trim them, I just thought it would be better to have one of each example, as sometimes examples are easier to understand then an abstract description (again, to me the extra few lines are negligible if the overall clarity of understanding is achieved). --Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, it is longer than the current version, as the current version is horrible and does not even address season disambiguation, nor does it give any examples. I'm pretty sure that if it did those two, this version would be about the same length, give or take a sentence. --Gonnym (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
It does address "sesaon" disambig., though maybe not enough, in the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Season articles section. I think I prefer handling the "season" and "list of episodes" articles in their own sections, as is currently done. So it's not that your season examples are "wrong" or "overdone" – it's just that I think they'd go better in 'Season articles' section, than under 'Additional disambiguation' (we can always reference the former in the latter with a "See 'Season articles' below for additional examples")... Beyond that, I still thinking including "double disambiguation" is a bad idea – if it is to be included, it should be kept as short as possible, with just a single example (the Deception example you used is fine; another option would be the Wanted example). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
That one line mention in the season section caused endless RMs because the language wasn't clear and people commented on the "additional disambiguation" section not covering it. Again, no reason for the split. Regarding the examples, just remove the ones in the above example you think should be removed, I really have no strong feelings for any, just that at least one of each type is presented. --Gonnym (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm in the camp of "if this comes up in RMs and is an accepted practice, it should be in the guideline" but others, and sometimes IJBall, like to invoke WP:CREEP for some reason. I think they are just afraid we will run out of RMs to fight over :P --Gonnym (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
(Just saw this...) It's more a case of K.I.S.S. – things like naming guidelines should be kept relatively short and simple, and should attempt to handle just most of the "major cases". What I don't think is necessary is for guidelines to contain examples of esoteric or rare cases (e.g. "double disambiguation" under NCTV) – I think including those just leads to more confusion, not less... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd appreciate an example of a situation in any example, could be even none-TV, where a good (good, not bad) guideline causes more confusion than not having it in. You might be right, but I cannot imagine such a scenario so would like see it through your eyes.
Gonnym – Did anyone ever bother to update the WP:BIGBRO naming conventions after the recent spate of page moves (esp. the U.S. and UK ones)? I think it's pretty clear that whatever support there was for the "old" (non-standard) BIGBRO "naming conventions" is gone now, and so those need to be rewritten to reflect the new RM consensus(es?), and the fact that the BB naming conventions are actually under WP:NCTV. Pinging Alucard 16 to this discussion as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@IJBall: That section currently has an outdated template on it. I'm gonna update it this week while I'm on vacation now that the American and British series have been moved. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?19:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I was hoping someone had discovered an easier way to do such counts of particular disambiguations, but this helps a bit. -- Netoholic@21:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Sadly, no. I've been doing this method the last few months in order to track down all the bad television disambiguation styles that I could think of. Until Wikipedia's engineers actually start treating the title and disambiguation as two objects and not one string, I don't see this changing really. --Gonnym (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Heh, so 6 versions now :) Well, I still stand behind my belief that each version should be its own article instead of a section in the main one with a split List of episodes article. --Gonnym (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Something funny....
I came across the official production website for Big Brother (Serbian TV series) and apparently they handed us the official naming convention on a silver platter so to speak. The official name of the show in Serbian is Veliki Brat but in English it is Big Brother. The name changes depending on if you chose to read their website in Serbian or English languages. Also the naming convention they prefer for the seasons is Big Brother <number> and Big Brother VIP <number>. Now I'm not too concerned with moving these articles considering how I have fixed the season chronology to work with Big Brother (Serbian season 4) and Big Brother (Serbian season 5) so they align with the Croatian series navigation wise. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?15:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Why do a lot of pages end in "19:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)19:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)19:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)19:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)19:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)19:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)19:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)" with no parameter value at the end? --Gonnym (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Bah, long day yesterday and should really pay more attention on days like that. I meant I see a lot of articles that have only "~~~~" and don't end in a parameter, such as "Ace (G.I. Joe)". Any idea why? --Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
That would be because they don’t use any labels, the script could not find any. I was lazy, did not write a check to see if any of them are non-empty. You can use Excel to filter them out or I could do another run with the check added. — Ganeshk (talk)12:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
No need for another run. Now that I know they are empty and not some error I can remove them from the list myself. Thanks a lot! This really narrows the list. --Gonnym (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what else I can do here. It's strange – the first one or two WP:RMs I did on ones in this category passed overwhelmingly. But the last two have gotten bogged down. If they don't pass, I don't see any point in trying to do RMs on any of the others, as they're likely to go down the same 1-support-1-oppose rabbit hole... IOW, I'm not sure what I can do when people just ignore the relevant naming conventions... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of maybe we are attacking this from the wrong angle. Most of these channels have a small lead, usually with very generic information and then list the TV programs on the channel Disney XD (Southeast Asia), which is not really worthy of information, as that isn't original programming. Instead, a better article would be a main "network" article, listing the original programming of the network and a table listing the various channels in other countries. And a sub-section for each country that has any substantial information other than the date it started and ended. What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea? Something that can be added to MoS? --Gonnym (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, one of the reasons going through this cat may take some time is for that very reason. In fact, I just converted TeenNick (Italian TV channel) into a redirect to Nickelodeon (Italy) because there was basically no content at the TeenNick article, certainly not enough to justify an article. This gets back to the current problem with the related WP:TVSHOW – just because a TV show airs "nationally" doesn't necessarily mean it's "notable" (at least, not anymore). The same is also true of cable TV channels – just because a (national) cable TV channel "exists" doesn't necessarily mean it's "notable"... So, yeah – one "main" "TV network" article is probably better than all of these various rinky-dink articles for individual "cable TV channels" all over the globe.
Now, all that said, at this point, I'm really more concerned with just "fixing" the "whole categories" of TV channel articles that are currently misnamed. I just started an RM on the TLC channels which you might want to take a look at. The next obvious candidates are the Nickelodeon, MTV and VH1 channels. For right now, I am staying away from those that have "Channel" in their names – e.g. Disney Channel – because of what happened with the Discovery Channel RM – for these ones, we may have to hold an RfC to see if people support doing Disney Channel (France) over Disney Channel (French TV channel)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Gonnym I noticed that some season articles won't need a table to move the Entered/Exit/Results info to the article like Secret Story (French TV series). I checked their season articles and all the info is in the article (sans table) so creating a table is not needed. For instances like this I'm gonna leave them to the end as your "simple operation" maybe best suited for these. By the way what is the "simple operation" you mentioned on my talk page? You have me curious... Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?15:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
In general two options - the first is just to remove the old template and whoever cares about that article should add the infobox on their spare time. Since this isn't really a replace of infoboxes, there is no data to move. While adding an infobox is a noble feature, it's not really part of the TfD requirement which was just to delete the template. Second option is to add a bare-bone template, name, image, link and again, let whoever cares fill in the rest. So if you look at the Secret Story example, you have the name and link info. --Gonnym (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Intriguing to be honest the four main English editions (American, Australian, British and Canadian) were top priority to get implemented correctly plus they have more sources than the international versions. For most international versions I'm just going to go through and bare bones then with what info is in the article. There is no way I'm working on the tables right now for Big Brother (German season 5) and Big Brother (German season 6) that lasted for a year and had over 50 housemates lol. Plus those two have way too many accessibility issues that my OCD would want to fix. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?15:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I totally understand. I'm shit at regex, so I can't get an AWB operation to work for that. If I could it would be much faster. --Gonnym (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
But I'm sure someone at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks can help. Once you get a list of articles you know you aren't going to create a table, make that list and then the whoever can help just needs to replace the templates with the information from |seriesname= -> |show_name=; |series= -> |season_number=; get the country -> |season_qualifier=. --Gonnym (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed that Category:Pages using infobox reality competition season with unknown parameters currently has 164 articles and it seems the |child= parameter is putting them there. Is this parameter not needed? If it isn't needed can an AWB task be used to remove them from the articles in the category? Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?08:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll remove those today. Apparently it's not needed to be added, as the infobox already handles that. Somehow I missed that. --Gonnym (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, that page looked like a test page as it had no edit over 2 and half years and no documentation detailing what it was. --Gonnym (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Merging Infobox television Amazing Race with reality competition season
Hey Gonnym, I made a table in my third sandbox showing how Infobox television Amazing Race can be merged with Infobox reality competition season. Except for 9 "season statistics" parameters we can make use of existing parameters already available in Infobox reality competition season and Infobox television season. Hope this mockup table helps. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?04:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Sure, will do it soon. I'm in the middle of using AWB to update pl.wiki of something and they asked me to not flood the recent changes, so I'm doing 10 changes/hour, so will probably get to this tomorrow. --Gonnym (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's safest – the 1950 series ran for 4 seasons; the 1957 series was just a short-term summer series. So it's likely that nearly all links mean to go to the 1950 series. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
You need to make sure that "Follow redirects" in Options is not set. Then I just replaced "List of Arrow episodes" with "Arrow (season 4)". Done now. --Gonnym (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, in "speaking English" terms, I think both ways are correct. But for article titling purposes, what I'm proposing is highly preferable, I think, for the reasons I've explained at the RM. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Since I'm not really sure how this "officially" goes, I go by the rule of Main article = network, other country versions = channel; since basically we usually don't have a network article AND a channel article for the first/main version. This article even has a H2 (A&E Networks)#Channels section which makes this even more network-er. --Gonnym (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I might be a bit off this week, as I'm visiting friends in a different city, but if there are AWB, leave me a note and I'll see if I can get to it. --Gonnym (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
As I expected, we're going to get stymied on a solution to the "documentary" disambig'ed ones, which means there's not much more that can be done.
The last remaining issue is what to do with those articles that cover shows that started on radio, and were later on TV (I think there's only half a dozen of these, or less...), and while I have an idea on how to handle these, if we aren't going to get agreement on what to do with "documentaries", I can pretty much guarantee we're not going to get agreement on how to disambig. these "radio-TV" shows.
So there's maybe half a dozen "easy" ones left, that you've added recently, than can be "solved uncontroversially". And some other "odds and ends" one that can maybe be resolved. But the rest of these involve ones in which there is no consensus on what to do with them. So I'm thinking this category is going to stay where it is right now, with 120+-odd entries that aren't going away...
Well, if you wont send them to RMs, I probably would. You were too naive to think anything can be solved uncontroversially on Wikipedia. Also, I think even without these, we can still lower the 120+ down a lot more. --Gonnym (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
If you do, it's likely to be a big job, as you'll need to figure out which of them are true "TV series" documentaries, and which qualify as just "TV programs/programmes". But if ever do bring them to RM, I know how I'm voting! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
A significant chunk of what's left are these cases of "radio shows" that became "TV shows", and so are difficult to disambiguate. I have an idea on how we should handle these, but I am majorly burned out on WP:RMs right now, and don't plan to launch any major ones for quite a while. (This applies to RMs for TV channels as well...) Then the rest are a mix of ones we've already tried to "solve" but were stymied, ones that can't easily be solved, and a few that should likely just be deleted. The only major group left is The Saturday Show ones, and I've been putting that one off because I think at least one of them may be a "TV programming block" and not a "TV series" at all... But, as I said – I'm off RM right now, so somebody else can solve that one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Stuff like this drives me nuts! In looking around, I'm not sure that it's notable (I found nothing in Variety or Los Angeles Times about it, and that's usually a red flag...). But it's one of those things that if you took it to WP:AfD, I'm not sure it would get deleted!
I think the series is called "The Revolution" (with maybe The American Revolution as another title it was known as). The official History Channel PDF release names each episode as "The Revolution:" (episode 1, change the number to see the other PDFs); The official site, IMDB and Amazon also call it that. No idea regarding the miniseries/TV series though. --Gonnym (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Rather then replying to each of the threads, just wanted to say in one go that I agree with you comments about removing some fields. Once those TFDs are closed, I'll consult with you (and anyone else who voices thoughts) on exactly which fields to keep and which to discard. Thanks!!! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
In the RM Alucard did say that the current change was just to eliminate the (US) disambiguation, but that we might change again depending on how season two is written. I can't see the promo, but I'm sure once it starts we will know more. --Gonnym (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Right now I wouldn't worry about moving the Celebrity Big Brother articles as it is still too soon to figure out the proper naming convention. Big Brother has its current naming primarily due to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and WP:COMMONNAME. CBS has an identity crisis with that show where in episode summaries they used the old name and in articles they alternate between Big Brother, season # and Big Brother #.
So far CBS is remaining consistent on the website by referring to the new season as Celebrity Big Brother, season 2 or Big Brother: Celebrity Edition season 2. A lot of sources are using Celebrity Big Brother, season 2 in articles, however there are some using Celebrity Big Brother 2 like thisthisthis and this. Before moving the Celebrity Big Brother its highly recommended to let the show premiere and see how CBS treats it once the show starts airing. If an RM is proposed now it could get derailed especially if someone does their homework and starts finding articles like the four above. As of now I would say Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. season #) is looking likely for the celeb edition as there are more RS using Celebrity Big Brother, season 2 but like I said I would wait for CBS to start airing the show and see what they do as far as episode summaries, episode recaps and articles on the official site.
@Alucard 16: Time to start a WP:RM yet? I still see no evidence that season #2 of Celebrity Big Brother is called anything like "Celebrity Big Brother 2" by CBS (and season #1 is not being called "Celebrity Big Brother 1")... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@IJBall: I was thinking about that however after the Power of the Publicist twist was announced CBS used the name Celebrity Big Brother 2 in the legal terms regarding the vote. [5] In the same manner as Big Brother 20 Julie's notecards have the old style logo from seasons 2-15 with the title Celebrity Big Brother 2. I did find eight articles from reliable sources using the name as well. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] I think after CBS used that name in the legal terms for the twist might be best to wait a bit more. After all CBS didn't use name Big Brother 20 in episode descriptions until the final episode. I believe the next one that should go through WP:RM is the Israeli version. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?07:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Well you know I'll never care about WP:CONCISE in any discussion. Radio programs while not having a NC should probably follow TV's guidelines (as we've recently been moving those pages), and this does indeed seem like a radio game show. Also worth noting, that this isn't alone, as I've tagged 15 other radio game shows at Category:Radio game shows with incorrect disambiguation.--Gonnym (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
As an aside, from what I am seeing in recent RM discussions, yeah – too many people are elevating WP:CONCISE over the other article titling criteria (e.g. WP:PRECISE and WP:CONSISTENCY)... Suffice it to say, I will not be taking any more article moves to RM that are just following the relevant NC guideline, as it just gives people excuses to ignore the NC guideline for whatever reason people feel like. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is insane that a guideline can be ignored without any need for exception just because a vote count said so. What's the purpose of having any guideline if any local consensus and any admin who doesn't care, can just ignore it? --Gonnym (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, while it does sound confusing calling a radio program a "show", the first sentence at Game show says A game show is a type of radio, television, or stage show in which contestants.... --Gonnym (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
That could work, but also remember that we tend to always add the medium (I know the current NCTV does not add the medium, which is another in the list of shortsighted points in that guideline), so having only "game show" should not really be our end-result. --Gonnym (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem is searching and categories. For those a redirect title means nothing, so having an ambiguous disambiguator does not help anyone. For example, when I'm searching stuff, and in this case, I want to search for (game show) articles, I don't want a radio game show. There really is no reason not to continue on with (radio x) here. --Gonnym (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
A good portion of these look like they're OVA series. Based on the previous RM's we've done, I guess a lot of these can be moved to "(film series)", but I'll probably focus on the (primarily) TV series ones first. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Good idea. As we have the backing of both the TV and Anime guidelines, the previous RfC and previous RM, I think that we are allowed to change these without anymore RMs, as those have shown us, the arguments are not based on any guideline or policy, but on IDONTLIKEIT responses. If anyone has any issues, they can always start a discussion after. --Gonnym (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
"Australian season [x]"
You seem to know the tricks of searching better than I do. Could you please list some examples of articles that are currently using "Australian season [x]" over "Australia season [x]"? There are a bunch of the latter in Category:Reality television articles with incorrect naming style, and I want to see a number of "correct" examples before I start trying to move these... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at WP:RMC, as I've been forced to start another RM for a TV series that now has incomplete disambiguation based on something you tagged yesterday. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Replacing "produced by" credit with executive producer (showrunner) credit
Gonnym – so I've noticed there are a number of WP:BLPs (e.g. Karen David is the latest example that I've come across) that are using {{Infobox musical artist}} for subjects who are primarily known as actors, and thus instead should be using {{Infobox person}} with {{Infobox musical artist}} used as a module inside{{Infobox person}}. Do you think a tracking category for this could be created? If so, how hard would it be to "populate" such a category? Would it likely require a bot request?... Thanks for any thoughts you can provide about this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a hard one. Lets see what your answers are to these questions, maybe this will help. If a person has a category Category:British film actresses, does it always need {{Infobox person}}? If a person has {{Infobox musical artist}} and has |occupation=actress, singer, songwriter which includes "actress", does it always need {{Infobox person}}? If the answer is yes for the first, then I guess a bot request can be made to check if an article that has one of the required categories has infobox person or not. If the answer is yes for the second, then maybe a tracking category can be added to the template, that checks if it is nested or not. --Gonnym (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
So, the issue is – it's probably not always that simple. If a person is primarily known for being an actor, then {{Infobox person}} (with {{Infobox musical artist}} used as a module) would be a correct. But, if they're a "singer/musician, first", and an "actor, second" (e.g. Joss Stone), then I'd say {{Infobox musical artist}} could the correct one to use (though I note that even Lady Gaga uses {{Infobox person}} with {{Infobox musical artist}} used as a module...).
Thus, what I can tell you is that the articles for people that use {{Infobox musical artist}} as the "primary" infobox and have |occupation=singer, actor/actress will include some of the problematic articles, but would also include articles that are probably correct using {{Infobox musical artist}} as the main infobox... So this probably doesn't help much at all, does it? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Nope, does not help. Code works in black and white (a Boolean) it is either true or false. If you can give me a scenario that always happens, I can see if we can make it work, but if not, there is nothing automatic about it. --Gonnym (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to start looking for commonalities, to see if something can be done... Failing that, I'll probably have to start my own "manual" list of these, because I keep coming across articles like this, where I don't feel like fixing the infobox issue when I come across it... and then I forget the articles at which it was an issue! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I think I'll remove the auto-yes part, as I don't know what the exact guidelines are for the use of AnomieBot. Thanks for letting me know of this issue, hope I didn't cause too much annoyance with this. --Gonnym (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm just not sure how to proceed with that as I have only one TfD discussion to link to and only for one template. --Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that Anomie, I didn't even know the bot did that, I thought it was a message for the users (I copied it from another wrapper template). Will make sure if I do more that I check and add. Thanks for the info everyone. --Gonnym (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw some of those a while back. Those project members have hundreds of one-use templates. That is something I'm not going near. If you do go near it, make sure you read previous nominations, which I'm sure there are so you know what their arguments will be. --Gonnym (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Since it was used on a template, a lot of links still say they point to it. Need for them to refresh, but I think I'm done. --Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kailash29792 and Autumnking2012: I've been working to create a Flash version of List of recurring Arrow characters in my sandbox. I'm finished sorting it alphabetically, and now I'm going to go over the sources and validate what they actually give info for, fill in the story gaps and add missing sources. I do have a question for both of you - what do you think is better, to have all characters alphabetically (seen in the sandbox version A-Z) or, have all characters from the show's universe (Earth-1) sorted alphabetically by letter sections AND have characters from other earths separated (as can be seen by the bottom half of the sandbox). I'm actually leaning a bit to the Earth separation one as it seems to give more context to the characters. What do you think? --Gonnym (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Usually the parallel-Earth doppelgangers have less substantial roles and giving them separate sections seems too much.For example, E1 Hunter Zolomon appears in only one scene, so he should share a section with his more prominent E2 doppelganger. But Jay Garrick has a substantial role, so he should not share a section with Henry Allen. --Kailash29792(talk)04:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with Kailash that listing all of them alphabetically works best, with the most prominent character, regardless of Earth origin, listed, and their counterparts sharing the section. In cases of two prominent versions of the same character, give them separate listings, but keep one overall list. AutumnKing (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so one list it is. Regarding the non-primary versions, I'm a bit conflicted here. While the version of Zoom-1 version should really not have its own version as it was just less than a minute of him sitting on a bench, usually the other versions are much more prominent and are equivalent to other minor characters included in the list already. We also need to remember that the list is not a "list of actors and their roles" but a list of characters, and while they are named the same and played by the same actor, they aren't the same character. I guess it will be easier to see once the list is cleaned out more with more details and sources. --Gonnym (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea. I've never taken a look at these templates to answer that, but without looking I can tell you that a lot of editors on en.wiki don't !vote with technical understanding, but with their emotions, which makes dealing with these kind of mergers very hard. --Gonnym (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Great job! I'm not too worries about those links using the old redirect, as we have so many of those still lying around. Wish that could be asked of a bot, but I'm sure people will use the "cosmetic" argument for that. Some guidelines I'll just never understand who the people endorsing them are. --Gonnym (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Two more obvious candidates for RMs are Double Dare and The Saturday Show. But, like I said – I've sworn off initiating RMs for a while, so it won't be me doing it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I think I'll slowly chip away at moving what we have in the various lists until we are left with only RMs. That way it will be easier to see what really is the problem. We still have a ton of easy moves left in the various cats. --Gonnym (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you had added a speedy deletion request for {{*mp}}. Although it was deleted, I have undeleted it. It needs to stay because otherwise, the layouts of historical versions of WP:Selected anniversaries subpages get completely messed up. For example, without the template being there, [16] would look like...
I even left a note on the template page itself in a noinclude block. Did you not see it? Or did you just decide to ignore it? I really don't understand the thought process here. —howcheng {chat}17:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
That comment was raised in the discussion and the closing admin decided to still delete it. I'm not sure why you think it is ok as an admin to bypass the TfD result. All templates that are deleted break old revisions. So what? --Gonnym (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Because WP:IAR. That TFD entry had 3 comments on it. If I'd known about it and had been able to contribute to it, who knows how it might have turned out? Let me turn this around: Why does it matter to you if this template exists or not? —howcheng {chat}19:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I think they should all be deleted. I would not start that discussion now, but I think it should be done. Reason: If redirects exists, there is no system to prevent editors from using them and such usage is not easily detected. There are 65 as of writing, [17], but there could easily be several thousand, since there are thousands of subclasses of territorial entities and as one can see by the insonsistent naming in the list of current redirects, that can be doubled several times: e.g. word order, capitalization, usage of abbreviations etc. 78.54.186.169 (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
It depends on the outcome of the TfD, but I'd say it would be kept. Once it is though, please add it to all the articles it links to, as that was part of the reason it was nominated in the first place. --Gonnym (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Gonnym, it looks like the discussion was completely ignored in the closing of this RM. It looks like there's two options: either contact User:wbm1058, and ask wbm1058 to reevaluate the close-moves. Or one of us can just move the season 2 and 3 articles to the correct disambiguation, as per WP:NCTV, ourselves... Which option would you prefer? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I think its worth contacting him. While he did close it, someone else moved the pages hours earlier. --Gonnym (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Based on what wbm1058 says, we should probably just move them ourselves. We can reference the discussion on wbm1058's page (and this one) as justification. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to go with "season 1", "season 2", etc. as we both preferred that disambiguation (as "standard" under NCTV). The problem with "I", "II", "III" is that I doubt it's universally used. (And, if it is, let somebody open another RM on that, and present evidence...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm requesting that you keep an eye on this one – this is one of the several Weakest Link articles we previously discussed that were not notable for standalone articles, so I converted to redirects. Now the editor primary responsible for this "article" keeps reverting the conversion to redirect with no explanation, and no real attempt to improve the article... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
I of course hate the sidebars, as can be seen from my recent clean up to our progress sandbox. So yeah, {{Infobox television}} is definitely the way to go with the series level articles. Hopefully I'll be done by tomorrow with the clean up so we can more easily see what is left. Also, welcome back! --Gonnym (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Finished updating the list. I've marked in red pages with issues. If you agree that the sidebar should go, then the next step is TfD and hope it passes. Some articles seem a mess because they have a few seasons in them. If we are keeping all that season information anyways, then its best to just split it into a proper season article. If we don't want a season article, then the tables need to be cut and replaced with a short season prose summary. There are also some minor issues with correct infobox formatting but I didn't mark those as those would be too much to list. --Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the list! Defiantly makes it easier to see what needs to be done. I think the moment the sidebars go to TfD they wouldn't survive but its best we have replacements ready in a sandbox so we can immediately replace them. Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) pretty much shows that they are not needed and that {{Infobox television}} is the way to go here. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat?03:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Where did TfD linking go wrong?
So I noticed the link to the {{Copyright-EU}} discussion in the TfD talk header template were broken. This was caused by DannyS712's edit here where one of the discussions was relisted, but XfDCloser updated both of the links; this could probably be considered a minor bug, since I would expect it to give a warning when multiple links are matched for updating (I haven't used XfDCloser, so I may be mistaken).
This led me to notice the links were imperfectly targeted originally, where Twinkle added a link to the section "Template:Intellectual property laws of the European Union", while the edit summary displayed a better targeted link to the section "Template:Copyright-EU" (I haven't used Twinkle, but the inconsistency between edit summary and header template seems odd to me.)
Interestingly, the link still works even though it didn't use the section title's name, but it targets to the template's name in the bulleted list. I can only surmise {{tfd links}} must add an anchor.
It might have been better if both discussions were relisted both related discussions simultaneously. Then again, maybe they should have been proposed together to begin with to avoid process cruft like this. But it's also always possible I misunderstand Wikipedia processes. eπi (talk | contribs) 01:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
No idea why Twinkle does that, I guess it was just never setup to handle multiple different discussions regarding the same template. --Gonnym (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Remind me again what was the RM history tool. That will make my life easier as I can't remember any past RM. --Gonnym (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It's generally broken. If it worked, it would be great. But every time I've tried it, it goes back only about 1–3 months, and no further. So I don't think it'd help... It definitely would be nice if there was a way to search just RM's. Probably the only "back up" option would be to use "Edit summary search" under User contributions, and specifically search for "Requested move" on Talk pages (only) – but even that won't be 100% effective as it won't catch when an editor launched an RM request... Anyway, I was only asking in case you could think of an obvious one I missed, so no worries. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
What do you think about renaming it to Infobox German place, to match section name and Australian place and UK place in Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Geography and place#Place? One talks of place names not location names. Also, the language might be more precise, a "place" has a "location". Later Infobox settlement could be changed to Infobox place. 89.14.34.135 (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with badly started because I know how WP discussion can go, one better presents issues like for pre-schoolers. "locality [...] best option at a new RM" - why? In Wikipedia "place" seems to be the established term:
etc. Regarding procedure: outside WP in a scientific environment I would agree. But here, I am not sure. It might be more effective to first have three 10000+ templates using that term. 77.13.82.51 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The reason why it is the best option is based on the discussions. If you read that thread you'll see that locality had the most supporters. I personal dislike place, as it is ambiguous. Is an "Infobox place" also for a mountain? What about a restaurant or a landmark? Basically, anything can be a place, which makes it a bad name for an infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
"most supporters" in a "discussion" is just one way of determining "best". I prefer to vote for a name that is the best based on the English language and common practice and policies in the English Wikipedia. "Infobox place" would be for any place as long as for the type of the place there doesn't exist a more specific infobox, which in case of a mountain exists: {{Infobox mountain}}. I think this is common practice, e.g. Infobox person is used as long as there is not a more specific infobox. Regarding the term "locality" - it could be to narrow: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/locality . RE "anything can be a place" - anything that physically exists. Would science be a place? 78.55.45.190 (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Please don't try and convince me. I don't decide names and I told you what I prefer and what I don't - you won't change it, especially if you are going to try and use stupid examples which you know I didn't mean. Go start a RM and see what happens. --Gonnym (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
"Please don't try" - what? "convince me" - of what? "I don't decide names" - your recent page moves of infobox templates suggest otherwise. 77.191.55.237 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
"use stupid examples which you know I didn't mean" - what do you refer to? Why are you switching to this negativity and aggressiveness? 77.191.218.203 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
In fact, a few number of people try to impeach the use of datas from Wikidata on EN Wiki. So since four year they use different stratagemes. This is the last. If they prefer having small articles, OK, but they penalize the huge number of reader and this is not normal. You can see a difference between fr:Grand Prix de Denain 2018 and 2018 Grand Prix de Denain. And we have an article for the fr:Grand Prix de Denain 2019, it is not the case here. Thanks to our system, the Wikipedias have bigger articles, more liable, and they are automaticaly updated when the race occur, one person do the work for everybody. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the context of this discussion is, but the wider community consensus is not against bigger articles if the information there is relevant and verified with sources. Can you please explain the issue? --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the late. The issue is there are less articles about some races on EN Wiki (an international language, it is the major point) where datas are already on Wikidata. Thus, on Wikidata, we are also deprived of contributors who could make updates to us who would return here through the algorithms. It is a more wider problem. For numerous datas, the fact we are not able to concentrate all efforts via Wikidata is a problem : in France, we will have elections for 35000 communes in less than one year and updates will be a problem. It is already a problem, see Hélesmes where the mayor dies. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
TfD for Infobox Shakespearean character
I would have appreciated a notice at WP:BARD (or my talk page directly as the last, iirc, to edit it) for the TfD nom for Infobobox Shakespearean character so that those with an actual interest in it would have had a chance to comment. As it was I didn't see that until your bot run to remove it just now. Now, as it happens I had previously concluded that that infobox as it stood was relatively pointless and caused more problems than it solved, and might well have ended up !voting to delete (merge) it; but either way I'm a bit miffed to be presented with a fait accompli decided without giving me a chance to at least be heard. Just sayin´. --Xover (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
See this thread for why there was no article alert in this case. I had assumed TfD just wasn't supported; but it turns out the bot just hadn't picked up {{tfm}} (vs. {{tfd}}) yet.And no complaint about your adherence to procedure. What I'm saying is that deleting stuff like this isn't so critical that there's any particular hurry in getting it done; but when people who care about whatever it is that's up at a XfD first find out about it by way of the deletion log, or an AWB run removing it, it will tend to upset them even if they would have agreed at the TfD. Going a bit above and beyond in notifying those who might care would avoid needlessly aggravating the natives. And I wasn't claiming any great contribution to that template, it was just a suggestion for one possible way to identify "people who might care and would appreciate a ping".In any case, I realise now you were (or so I assume) relying on the article alerts bot to notify relevant WikiProjects, and certainly couldn't have known that it didn't handle this particular scenario. --Xover (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Good call on asking about it, I didn't even realize that the article alerts were missing those. To be honest with you, over the past year or so, I either nominated or was part of deletion discussions for around 32 fictional character/race/element infobox templates which all resulted in deletion. Some of the more popular had a lot of participation, but most had minimal, and their template's edit history usually showed no activity. Even for this template, the limited documentation (which was only an example infobox, not an actual documentation) missed more than half of the parameters the template had in the code. From my experience this usually means that the template has no maintainers. Again, sorry you didn't get a chance to voice your opinion on this, but I hope the outcome isn't something too awful to live with. As a side note - there were a lot of mixed usage in parameters with |see_also= and |source= sometimes used for the same thing and other times for stuff completely different. If a character is based on something previous, make sure those articles use |based_on= with {{based_on}}. --Gonnym (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you weren't wrong: the template wasn't maintained, had no docs, and was broken in several ways. My few edits were an attempt to start to fix it, but it was clearly too much effort for too little gain. I may take a stab at it again at some point in the future (Shakespeare characters have some unique attributes that are relevant, and some special sourcing requirements), but probably not until there's better infrastructure for making such infoboxes without creating the kind of mess the old template was. --Xover (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
