Template talk:Infobox awards list/Archive 1

Archive 1

Total number of nominations includes those won

Why was it determined in this template that the total number of nominations does not include the wins, when most wins are from nominations (with the exception of a few film industry awards that just announce winners, & in that case there are no nominations to be added to the totals)? Also, when there is a record number of nominations for a person or title, it would not be reflected in the nominations totals because of this. This was brought up at Template talk:Infobox musician awards but not addressed. Lapadite (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Wins are included as nominations. The note in the Totals subheader states: For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination. - Brojam (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I referred to that above. It says it's 'presumed', but the question is why the total number of nominations shown in the list article is not actually reflected in the infobox nominations totals. Readers looking at an infobox showing, say, "7 nominations, 40 wins" would see it as nonsensical as there can't be 40 wins from 7 nominations. And again, in the example of someone who has a notable record number of nominations for something, it would not be reflected in these totals. Any quirk with a specific award can be and is normally mentioned in a note; in fact that general note in the infobox alludes to this. This infobox totals format for the majority does not make sense and does not service the reader. Is there a talk discussion that led to an agreement on this that I can refer to? Lapadite (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

If I saw "40 wins, 7 nominations" that would mean 7 times they didn't win. A person is generally nominated for something before winning it. If I saw someone with "2 wins, 2 nominations" I wouldn't expect that total to be from only 2 awards; I would expect there to be four awards total.Primefac (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A nominations totals is literally the total number of nominations the subject has received regardless of how many were won. And the wins totals is just the total number of wins. Not relative to x or y. 5 Grammy nominations received and 2 won makes an artist a 5x Grammy nominee and 2x winner - not a 3x nominee (the amount not won) according to your view of the totals. This confuses readers forcing them to go through the table/list to confirm what it may be referring to, which defeats the purpose of the simplicity of an infobox. If there's no prior discussion and consensus among editors in favor of that view, there's no basis to force articles to apply it. Lapadite (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I asked the question here (now transcluded below) and the general agreement (even though it was a small discussion) was that nominations should not include wins. This template was created with a note stating how the wins/noms should be listed. At this point it is you that must find a consensus pointing in the other direction. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok so now there's a discussion that mentions this to refer to. This has been questioned too before on the talk pages of this template and/or the Infobox musician awards template (e.g, [1]) but no discussion came of it. Now, the discussion you just linked has two editors that responded: one said "I'm not sure what the correct way to go is", the other said "Wins are their own parameter", and neither of which answers the question. If this is the only discussion that mentions this issue, then there clearly has been no "agreement" or consensus for your preference, so I don't know why you're acting is if there is. Please seek a community consensus/RfC for it before forcing articles to apply your method. I added my view to that discussion. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, but even if we do go with the argument that there is no current consensus, then that means that we need to get a consensus to change it from what it is currently. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

A nomination is not a loss. That simply doesn't fit the definition of the word. I tend to read it as "X wins from Y nominations", and would expect Y to be the total nominations, including wins, losses and presumed nominations (when the award is announced without a prior nomination round). I also feel that the footnote might benefit from a copy edit. If this is bound for an RfC, maybe that could be handled at the same time. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Previous discussion at WT:PRIZE

Okay, so through various different pages and editing I've come across a question/issue with {{Infobox awards list}} and {{Infobox musician awards}}. Specifically, that there is no "pending" in either template, causing some editors to stick the whole damn template into the article space (example 2). There is also some discrepancy (mentioned but not dealt with here) about counting nominations even if they turned into wins, so I have two questions: Should the "nominations" field of the awards lists contain nominations and wins? In other words, if an artist is nominated for 10 awards and won 4 of them, would we list that as (4/6) or (4/10)? Should we list "pending" awards? To keep using Ariana as an example, the 2019 MTV Video Music Awards haven't happened yet and so the result is listed as "pending". In my opinion, she's still nominated, so these should be marked as "nominated" (but I have no issue going with consensus if people feel otherwise). In other words, I'm mostly looking for a little more consistency between all of the various articles that use (or subst'ed) the awards templates. Primefac (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply) I'm not totally convinced that pending is needed in the summary, but if it stops stupid edits like the one you linked to, then adding it is worth it. Regarding your first question, I'm not sure what the correct way to go is. I'll add 2 more issues. I've long thought that manually updating the totals was a very bizarre way of handling this template, so at the sandbox of Template:Infobox actor awards I've added code for automatic calculations. However, that also requires manually inserting awards to the code, which while better than the current process, is still not good. Another editor also brought up an issue with alphabetizing the order with the manual awards, which in the current setup cannot happen. Both issues can be solved if the templates are converted to Lua. However, as the infobox module is not setup for access from other modules I wasn't sure how to even start that. --Gonnym (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2019 (UTC) 1: No. 2: No. Wins are their own parameter. If there's a template where they aren't, then fix it. Pending stuff is hypothetical, thus see WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and WP:NODEADLINE. WP will have info on the award after it is in fact awarded. (It's important in this particular context to remember that recipients of awards can decline them.) — AReaderOutThataway t/c 15:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Q1: Yes, because a nominations totals is literally the total number of nominations the subject has received regardless of how many were won. 5 Grammy nominations received and 2 won makes an artist a 5x Grammy nominee and 2x winner - not a 3x nominee (the amount of nominations not won). Please refer to my comments on this here. Wins and nominations have their own parameters that should reflect the mere totals of each. Not including the total number of nominations received in the infobox nominations totals confuses and does not service readers, nor does it accurately reflect the subject's awards total history. Lapadite (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Q2: No. I don't find a pending parameter in the infobox useful and it's just unnecessary work for editors. The pending awards haven't happened therefore there's no reason to reference them at all in the infobox until the results are announced. Lapadite (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC) Note there is now a discussion at the template talk. I'll probably transclude this section but since now most of the "awards" templates have been merged into {{Infobox awards list}} it might be best to continue the conversation there. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC) 1: Yes. 2: No. I tend to read this as "X wins from Y nominations". Nominations include wins and losses. I would tend not to include pending nominations because this would offset the implied win-to-nomination ratio. Whatever is decided, a footnote should clearly and concisely explain what is presented. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC) No, and No. It's sorely reader-confusing to count the same thing as both a win and a nomination. The entire point of tracking nominations at all is that they're losses but for something that even being nominated for it contributes to notability. If necessary, add an autogenerated footnote that "nominations" doesn't redundantly include wins. Look at is this way: In a serial killer template, we would not include a murder in both a list of "murders" and a list of "attempted murders", re-counting the murder as a "successful attempt". Or another way to look at it: the very meaning of a nomination that wasn't a loss (i.e., not just a nomination) is that it was a win. That a nomination phase happened before the win is inherent in any awards process that involves nominations. Another way to look at it: If I have two pizzas, and I cook and eat one, it no longer makes sense to say I have two pizzas; one of the pizzas has transformed into a mass of goop in my stomach. On the second matter, see WP:NOT#CRYSTAL; no award or nomination should be listed as "pending", only listed after it is confirmed, since these things can change.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Automatically generated efn & References section

Is a way to add a different efn or have "References" appear elsewhere instead of the infobox? It seems that editors should be able to change the wording or position. Several other related infoboxes don't have set efns & refs ({{Infobox artist discography}}, {{Infobox musical artist}}, {{Infobox concert}}). Thanks, —Ojorojo (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that the note about wins/nominations is more of a note than a reference, and I think the name could be changed rather than removing it; there's no reason to have the note all the way down at the bottom of what could be a very big page (which also might not have a {{notelist}}). Primefac (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that anything be removed, rather that editors should be able to override the auto-generated wording and positioning on a case by case basis. Efns are typically found at the end of the article along with references, etc. Wherever they appear throughout an article, they are accessed by clicking on the their link, so readers do not have to scroll down long articles. If the editor does not include a {{notelist}}, the current wording and positioning would remain as the default. Also, as Primefac mentions, "notes" are not typically listed as "References", since they are more explanatory than actual sources for the text. The current efn is five sentences (over 70 words), which some editors may feel is unnecessarily long. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

As an interim measure, changed the "References" header to "Note": it's used for one explanatory footnote. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Issues in footnote stemming from FLC for Stranger Things awards

A couple of irregularities in this template's footnote cropped up in my review of List of awards and nominations received by Stranger Things.

Firstly, runner-ups and placings are considered wins for the purposes of the infobox, as they are "specific recognition[s] and ... different from losing an award". This is, in my view, misleading. For example, Stranger Things finishing eighth in Rotten Tomatoes' "Best-Reviewed New TV Shows" is listed as a win in the infobox, despite Rotten Tomatoes distinctly ranking seven other shows above it, and only listing Atlanta as the "Golden Tomato Winner". To analogise, we don't list Andre De Grasse as a winner of the 100 metres at the Rio Olympics in his article's infobox, even though he received a "specific recognition" as a bronze medallist and did not lose.

The cleanest way to solve this, in my opinion, would be to create a parameter for "placings" – when the show/artist/whatever finished 2nd, 3rd etc. in an award, but did not win.

The second irregularity is a contradiction in the last two sentences of the note: Awards in certain categories do not have prior nominations and only winners are announced by the jury. For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination. I don't understand why the template explicitly notes that certain categories do not have prior nominations, yet goes on to assume they do. Evidently, if an award without prior nomination is assumed to have had such a process for the purposes of the infobox, this will lead to an incorrect figure being displayed. Rather than avoiding errors, this practice seems to be causing them. – Teratix ₵ 09:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)