Template talk:Infobox awards list

award21 and 22 are documented but not implemented

award21, award21W, award21N, award22, award22W, award22N are in the docs but were never added to the template. Should they be, or are the entries getting too long? Zaathras (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Um... you removed them. ​ Primefac (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how I managed that, sorry, thought i was just adding them to the error-checking. Will revert and look at it all again. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Totals should be avoided

Most uses of the total parameters (|wins= and |nominations=) are meaningless WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The likelihood is that anyone who wins a "Kerrang! Award" [to pick one at random] will also win awards from lesser organisations, publications, or journalists covering similar music. Who decides which awards are notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia article? Any cutoff level of notability is arbitrary. To list the most notable nominations and cut off the rest is acceptable, because a line must be drawn somewhere. But if the list happens to be, say, 9 items long, you should not put the number 9 in the infobox: it invests an essentially arbitrary number with a fictitious level of authenticity. jnestorius^(talk) 11:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the solution is to replace "Total" in the template with "Summary"? I think there is some utility in adding up the totals in the infobox so readers can get a general idea of how many awards something won (i.e., did it get a few dozen or a few hundred?). But I agree that we can adjust the wording used in lists to avoid implying that these sums are definitive. I particularly agree that it should be avoided in prose sections, as you pointed out here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think eyeballing the subtotals is enough for such a general idea, without need for any grand total. You can tell a few dozen from a few hundred, and you don't need to know at a glance that it's 48 and not 53. More importantly you can tell if the list is restricted to major awards lots of people have heard of, or includes more obscure ones. jnestorius^(talk) 12:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If the infobox is collapsed (which by default it is), there's no way to quickly glance at the totals. And I think it would be more challenging than one might expect to quickly guess how many awards there are in total just by eyeballing it – the length of the infobox list doesn't directly correlate to the total number of awards.

Another option to clarify that the totals are not definitive might be to tweak the footnote, though I think some brainstorming on the new wording would be needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think these are non-problems. You can eyeball a short list of big numbers or a long list of small numbers; the total is meaningless anyway. If an editor judges that clicking expand is too much trouble for readers in a particular instance then the editor can set |nocollapse=y. jnestorius^(talk) 14:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You know what, I would support deprecating the parameter entirely. I don't think it is OR (per WP:CALC), but I agree that the total is meaningless. Not all awards are equal (e.g. Emmys are more prestigious than Fangoria Chainsaw Awards). Maybe uncollapse the the list by default (i.e. remove |class=mw-collapsed but keep |class=mw-collapsible), so that people can still see at a glance how "successful" a given person is? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I would not oppose deprecation. However, there may be instances where the list of awards being included is in some objective non-Wikipedia sense definitive rather than arbitrary. I don't know of any, but in theory its possible; things like Big Four beauty pageants or EGOT may be rather trivial but they seem to have a definite real-world existence. In such a minority of cases, "total" numbers could be permitted. (As regards OR: my thinking is that the total would be OR if the implication is that the Wikipedia threshold of notability for inclusion in the list has some real-world existence.) jnestorius^(talk) 23:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm also getting more and more convinced by the idea of deprecating the totals parameter. To me, the standard for award inclusions detailed at MOS:FILMACCOLADES is fine, but I do think listing a total is too arbitrary. I also dislike the note, which means that runner-up, third-place and so on are counted as wins. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Mock-up made

Alright. I have mocked up {{Infobox awards list/sandbox}}, which removes the totals. It also uses |collapsed=yes and defaults to not collapsing because the list is the only thing of note in the infobox with the totals gone. Do people support switching to use the sandbox version? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Support – I can see the appeal of having "total" numbers as a quick summary. However, since the standard of inclusion for awards comes from our own internal guidelines and notability thresholds (MOS:FILMACCOLADES), these numbers are our own creation. IMDb, unreliable as it may be, has its own standards for inclusion and their accolade numbers are completely different. There is also the argument that different awards have different prestige, but it's been stated already. Sgubaldo. (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer the infobox remain collapsed by default, but I suppose it doesn't matter that much. Also, the footnote is necessary regardless of the outcome of this discussion since, even with the main totals removed, each individual award has a nominations/wins counter. I dislike how runner-up, third place, and so on are counted as wins, but what constitutes a win will need to be a separate discussion. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Support as above jnestorius^(talk) 13:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – as I previously noted, I think there is some utility to keeping the totals, and a better solution might be to replace "Total" with "Summary" to sound less definitive. Additionally, the current sandbox template removes the footnote regarding runners-up/second place/etc.; unless there is a wider discussion to change what constitutes a win (since hundreds of infoboxes would have to be updated as a result), it should be added back somewhere. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The footnote is currently displayed next to the "Total" summary. I can see an argument for moving the footnote next to the "Accolades" heading (regardless of the outcome of this discussion).

While I am here, I would argue that the individual awards list is already a summary, and we should not be summarizing a summary.

Given that there is opposition and this will impact thousands of articles (there are currently 1.4k transclusions of the template and a further 650 articles which are eventually going to be converted to use the template as part of the big TemplateStyles cleanup), I am inclined to start an WP:RFC asking the question Should the totals be removed from this template?, with options to keep, rename to Summary, or remove.

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think notifying various WikiProjects (TV, Film, Music, etc.) is sufficient for now – an RFC seems like overkill at this time. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. I have notified Television, Awards, Film, Music, and Actors and Filmmakers. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – per RunningTiger123, not having some sort of summary of the number of rows in the list seems like an oversight. The current totals are actually more relevant than relisting every award in the infobox, which seems to be quite redundant and goes against the aim of infoboxes to give a brief, high-level overview. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - per RunningTiger123 and Adamstom.97. I feel having the quick, cumulative overview for a media's awards is quite helpful to the reader, so they can see project got 20 awards from 53 nominations etc etc. And then at that point, if they are curious, they can look at the individual award breakdown in the infobox or the article body below. I do agree with the suggested change of "Total" to "Summary". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancy: Template documentation versus common article usage

I updated the template to indicate that the nominations count excludes wins, following the template documentation. However, @Rhain (discussion) pointed out that this does not apply to most articles where the template is not used. To rectify this discrepancy between the template documentation and its usage, I suggest adding notes and correcting articles that do not follow this guideline. Also, check the related discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Awards nominations count. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) To rectify this, I am re-proposing to remove the clause "not including those won" from the help document because

• The literal meaning of "nomination count" is clear.
• As pointed out by @Rhain, adding a note stating "Excluding wins" will introduce misinformation to hundreds of articles.
• As pointed out by @Indagate, most featured lists follow the normal custom of including wins in the nomination count.

Anoop Bhatia (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This seems like something that should be consistent one way or the other, so should correct articles and not include a note. Think including a win as also being nominated is more common. Indagate (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

@Indagate I have no issue with including wins in nominations, but currently, not every article is following the template documentation, which needs to be fixed. Additionally, if wins are omitted, this should be noted, as nominations are nominations regardless of the outcome, according to related discussions. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Checked random sample of featured lists with the template and all the examples seem to have wins included in nominations as well, so I'd say doc should be updated to reflect that standard practice and any articles not following that should be edited.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indagate (talk • contribs), 10:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree; I've only ever seen wins included in nominations. I'd say the documentation should be updated to reflect practice in this instance, not the other way around. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Indagate @Rhain At present, the usage of this template violates Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, I am restoring the footnote. This will also make more people aware of this violation issue and encourage them to participate in finding a resolution.Anoop Bhatia (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Anoopspeaks: Which guidelines does it violate? I've reverted your edit; as I've said, such a significant addition demands consensus. The footnote is unlikely to make many editors aware unless they are explicitly notified. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rhain According to Wikipedia:Template namespace, templates must have clear documentation regarding their usage and scope. If a template omits the count of wins from nominations, contrary to the definition of nomination count, the template documentation becomes unclear unless this discrepancy is communicated to the reader. Furthermore, WP:TDOC emphasizes that users should strictly follow the guidelines provided in the template documentation. Can you declare this not to be a violation simply because a larger number of users are using it otherwise? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the solution here is to either change the documentation or edit each article that doesn't follow it; adding the footnote introduces more problems than it solves. It seems that specific phrasing originates from {{Infobox musician awards}} and was introduced to this template about 15 months after it was created. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Rhain I agree with removing the clause from the documentation to make it consistent throughout Wikipedia and align with the meaning of nomination count. However, if the phrasing is retained, it should be conveyed to the reader because, in most award shows like the Oscars, when the number of nominations is announced, it includes wins. Also, If you agree that the current status of the template violates Wikipedia:Template namespace and WP:TDOC, will you restore the note? It is not causing confusion; it is providing clarity, which should have been added when the documentation was updated 15 months ago. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I won't restore the footnote, as that would add incorrect information to hundreds of articles. (And, to clarify, the documentation was changed 4.5 years ago, not 15 months.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I support changing not including those won → including those won in the template documentation. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems best, any article that doesn't follow that should then be edited to follow it Indagate (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, this would reflect how the template is actually used in my experience. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I've made the change. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to voice your concerns here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Collapsible feature not working

I'm not sure if this is the result of an intentional change or not, but the show/hide button at the top of the infobox doesn't do anything now – all awards in the list seem to be permanently shown. The show/hide button for the note seems to work fine. The issue persists across browsers and in logged-in and logged-out views. It doesn't look like there were any recent edits to this template that explain it, so maybe it's the result of a different template or module this one is using? RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

After more testing, it looks like it works in Vector 2010 but not in any other skins... no idea what would cause that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Could be a WP:THURSDAY change; a lot of recent changes have been visual (i.e. the literal "cosmetic" variety) and they do them skin-by-skin. If it's not happening on 2010 then there's a non-zero chance this is the case, though one would expect to find in other places where auto-hiding is used (might be worth checking?). Primefac (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I noticed this about a month ago after the 13 June style changes—it was mentioned on Discord around then too. On a possibly related note, there are some issues with collapsible elements within navboxes that started a little earlier—it completely destroyed one navbox (fixed here), and it does something similar when you click on the "hide" link (under Video games > "Generation I" header) here—though notably this happens on all skins so it might not be relevant. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Finally came back to this – it looks like the issue stems from this diff, which seems to be a quick fix for those 13 June changes. Specifically, when I remove

body.skin--responsive .mw-parser-output .infobox-table tr {
  display:table-row!important
}

from the style sheet, the table becomes collapsible again. I know nothing about this area so I don't know why that works or if it can be fixed without breaking other things, but I figured I'd share it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)