Template talk:Infobox awards list

Missing awards?

Moved to Talk:Paula Abdul § Missing awards?

Primefac (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

References