![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Please read WP:PERFNAV and WP:PERFCAT. Presenters of TV series do not belong in navboxes for those series, and neither should they be categorised by those series. It's all very clear in the guidelines. Please revert your edits. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I quote: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If you want to establish a consensus to remove it, that's fine. But there is no direct rule against it. And the cat rule does not apply to crew members, films are always categorized by directors and writers. JDDJS ( talk) 13:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I'm not going to revert my edits. I'm not cherry picking anything. Generally, templates aren't included, but they make it extremely that there is no rule and it comes down to consensus. The cat rule does not apply to writers or producers and never has. JDDJS ( talk) 13:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Robsinden and JDDJS: I accepted the WP:3O since I was pinged anyway as having a background in the applicable guidelines, am unfamiliar with the show or bio other than I've heard the names before (no pro or con bias), am a long-term template editor, have CfD and TfD experience, and don't interact much with either disputing editor, so I can be impartial about it. I've done dispute resolution here before, though am not presently in any of the "bodies" for it listed at WP:DR.
This appears (from edit history) to be about the content (broadly speaking) of both Samantha Bee and Template:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, both of which could affect what appears in Category:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee. There are multiple things at issue; the ones I can pick out so far:
{{
Full Frontal with Samantha Bee}}
on it, or is this against
WP:PERFNAV?{{Full Frontal with Samantha Bee}}
have a centered heading at the top of it, reading "
Samantha Bee (2016–present)", in the space that some similar templates have article links like "Correspondents • Writers • Guests • Recurring segments • Awards"?Is anything missing or incorrectly stated in the above? (I mean anything pertaining to the content or policy/guideline-interpretation disputes, not behavioral complaints; I'm not an admin and carry no banhammer.) For all the template layout questions, the default presumption is "some other layout option is possible"; i.e. it's not a binary choice between exactly what's already been argued over. WP:IAR, when applicable, isn't limited to anything in particular; it can be integrated into examination of the extant line-items and doesn't need its own.
Feel free to ping me with agreement or disagreement with this list of what to cover (and on later responses); I'll be around intermittently all day. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Waited a long time for a pingback. I am going to answer the questions as I've laid them out, to the best of my policy analysis ability. I've done this in more depth that usual because there are some clear problems that need to be resolved in the wording of the guidelines to help prevent disputes like this in the future, and such an analysis is necessary for that to happen.
PERFCAT and PERFNAV are interpreted as a pair, for years now. Consensus is never going to entertain a WP:LAWYER/ WP:GAMING argument that a wording variance between them (or between sections in them) means anything other than that they need to have their exact wording synched again better (which I will go suggest after I'm done here, because the inconsistency leads to disputes like this one). So, let's just not wander off in that direction. See also WP:P&G and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY: WP policies and guidelines are interpreted in the spirt they were intended and in the way in which they interoperate, never with an eye to loophole exploitation, over-literal nit-pick readings, or in ways that make the contradict each other [when such an interpretation can be avoided; actual conflicts have occurred].
I'm inclined to say "yes", on balance, and after a whole lot of guideline interpretation (and reversing my original "no" instinct). It ultimately resolves to a WP:Common sense matter, and the majority of individual categories on talk and variety shows do the same with people integrally identified with such a show in the public mind. This is clearly either a strong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or (more likely, since I can't find a discussion concluding to do this programmatically) it is actually evolved general consensus, and the guideline should be updated. I would think it would require either an RfC or a cleanup CfD, addressing these categories all at once, to undo it. Undoing it might be bad idea, because the practice is helpful to readers, the categorization would be confusing without it, and it does not trigger the WP:UNDUE and WP:OVERCAT concerns that are behind WP:PERFCAT.
Detailed analysis 1
|
---|
WP:PERFCAT is largely about creating new categories, but the general advice is applicable to inserting someone into an existing one; that's been discussed many times before, it simply doesn't come up as frequently. Grenschlep's hand-waving argument that PERFCAT somehow doesn't apply to Bee is clearly incorrect. PERCAT's examples include use of "artists", "performers", and "entertainers" as blanket entertainment industry terms for people in the field. Bee is obviously included in any and all capacities with regard to the show. There is no word anyone can apply to her (writer, originator, host, star, director, showrunner, etc.) that acts as a magical escape clause. The fact that the page-top discussion about "performers" focuses on actors, musicians, comedians, etc. is irrelevant when later clarification in the page includes production people. However, Bee also qualifies as a comedian; her show is a satire program. The basic rule (in pertinent part), under Performers by series or performance venue: " The actual practice is to usually include the main hosts (talk and sometimes musical) of such shows in the individual shows' categories, when they are considered utterly integral to the show (or a very long run of it) in the public mind. We see this at, to just pick a few examples: Category:The Tonight Show, where it lists a few of the longest-running people on the show, but omits shorter-running ones who are just as famous (e.g. George Carlin, one of Johnny Carson's most frequent substitutes over 30-odd years but not for entire seasons); Category:Late Night (NBC) and its subcategories (importantly here: even when the name of the show already includes the name of the host); the subcats of Category:The Late Late Show (U.S. TV series) (same note as the for the last example); Category:The Late Late Show (Irish TV series), Category:The Daily Show, Category:Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, Category:America's Got Talent, Category:Australia's Got Talent, Category:Late Show with David Letterman; and many others. Curious exceptions are Category:The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (includes Stephen Colbert (character) but not Stephen Colbert bio) and Category:Britain's Got Talent (includes no one). That there are some gaps is normal for Wikipedia (thousands of volunteer editors working randomly; perfection is not required). The number of categories for individual talk and variety shows with their own categories is quite small, so an exhaustive examination of them doesn't take long. Most of them follow the pattern of including key figures. This is practice is not applied to actors on fictional shows (the main thing PERFCAT was written to address as a category profusion problem); e.g.: Category:M*A*S*H, Category:24 (TV series), Category:Doctor Who. Some of these categories do presently include key production people (as at: Category:Breaking Bad, Category:Game of Thrones, Category:Saturday Night Live which is predominantly fictional skits, etc.), but this is not done frequently or consistently; an RfC would probably remove them. I.e., it is not evidence of a WP consensus to include production people generally. Because the show is entirely focused on Bee, it is clearly desirable for some category link between Bee and her show to remain, or the category system would confuse readers rather than help them. The purpose of our category system is primarily as a means of reader navigation to related material (internal maintenance purposes are secondary). Bee has no category of her own, into which her show's category could be be put. This rationale would not apply to a show with dozens of notable people associated with it, nor to someone not closely identified with the show and vice-versa; otherwise the "include key people" practice would not be so tightly constrained as it is; editors concerned about PERFCAT would have dealt with them and consensus would have agreed with them. There is clearly at least a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for this practice, just one we have not either a) written down or b) overturned with an RfC. It's so frequent and so nearly consistent for talk and variety shows' categories that I think it would take an RfC or mass cleanup CfD to undo it, because it appears genuinely useful for readers, and triggers neither the WP:UNDUE nor WP:OVERCAT concerns behind the PERFCAT guideline. One issue with it would be that it could inspire profusion, e.g. of actors, etc., which is why I suggest it should either be removed from all of these cats. or put into the guideline as a special rule. |
{{
Full Frontal with Samantha Bee}}
navbox on it?"Yes, as standard operating procedure for cases of a close connection between the bio and such a show, and no good reason not to. Bee is mentioned (and in one editor's preferred revision prominently linked) in the navbox, and she and her show are obviously relevant to each other and closely connected (i.e., there is a navigation need). None of WP:PERFNAV's rationales are triggered: There are no WP:UNDUE concerns (e.g. if a particular movie's navbox were on the page of an actor with a long career, giving undue weight to one film, or the navbox was only on that one actor's article, giving undue weight to one bio among many notables in the film). Nor are there any profusion-of-navboxes concerns (i.e., multiple shows, bio subject having her own navbox, subject notable for more than one thing with navboxes, etc.). This, too, is a candidate for either a multi-article RfC or a guideline clarification. The apparent intent behind WP:FILMNAV suggests that it should be clarification, not deletion.
Detailed analysis 2
|
---|
The
WP:PERFNAV material cited: " Samantha Bee is mentioned in the navbox by name (whether that name is linked or not, a different matter, below), so it would be "user-hateful" rather than user-friendly for us to not have the navbox on her page. It largely would defeat the purpose of the navobox's existence. There's a strong argument for making this a combined bio/show navbox. There are solid precedents for this, such as the Howard Stern and The Howard Stern Show navbox. The last thing we want is two navboxes that mostly overlap. TfD will determine whether one at all is needed here, but while it exists it would seem to belong on the article. We should proceed as if it will be kept. PERFCAT's only stated rationales are undue weight (does not apply in this case) and navbox profusion at the article (also does not apply here). We might revise this assessment years from now if Bee's career diversifies, or if the show changes hands, or other various other conditions. Similar talk show host bios of comparable people (notable especially as hosts of particular talk/variety shows with navboxes about the shows) typically have the navboxes on the bio article: Johnny Carson, John Oliver, Craig Kilborn, Craig Ferguson, Jon Stewart, Steve Allen, Jack Parr, Gerry Ryan, Pat Kenny (arguably has navbox overkill), Ryan Tubridy (ditto), Gay Byrne, Larry Wilmore, Alex Magala, Brandy Norwood, and Stephen Colbert (character) (see below for bio). There are exceptions to the inclusion, which can be generally catalogued with clear rationales we simply haven't put into the guideline yet:
Both O'Brien and Leno do have navboxes about The Tonight Show, but highly specific ones rather than the general one. Stephen Colbert is an unusual case; Stephen Colbert (character) is in the relevant shows' categories but neither is true of Stephen Colbert, the bio. Obviously, some hosts, like Dick Cavett and Jonathan Ross, have no such navbox, because there isn't one for their show(s). And a few articles on people notable for multiple things have an undue show navbox that should be removed, e.g. Howard Stern's for America's Got Talent. Inclusion is sometimes even applied to a show's long-term bandleaders, e.g. Doc Severinsen, and some have their own cat. under the show cat., e.g. Category:CBS Orchestra members; these are rare, presumably because a very strong association with the show is uncommon, and the individuals are usually notable for prior musical work. This case is very simple, and the single navbox doubles as both a show and a bio navbox, whether explicitly or not. Depending upon one's interpretation of PERFCAT, this may be another case where we either need to codify an exception, or do an RfC to impose a more strict interpretation of PERFCAT tightly across an entire class of articles. However, the WP:FILMNAV material at the end of these analyses provides additional very strong evidence of such a consensus, of exactly the kind I've described, between a work that primarily is [or is seen as] that of a particular bio subject, where the bio subject is [or is seen as] its primary creator. It's just poorly articulated and integrated, like much of the rest of these guidelines. It appears that the exception exists, but has been so poorly written it is one-way (work info in bio navbox) and daftly only includes video media. |
Yes to the first, no to the second. This is quite clear. The short version: They're interpreted as having the same applicability, despite wording differences. They apply to everyone in the arts and infotainment sphere, because the examples given are "not limited to" those examples, and they include both on-camera and behind-the-scene roles. This has long been the interpretation at WP:CFD, etc. But their general applicability does not mean they are rigidly enforced like laws, especially when another one, FILMNAV, appears at least in intent to provide an explicit exception, though it fails to in its exact wording.
Detailed analysis 3
|
---|
The end. There is no question about this matter at all, and it is the standard interpretation. Obviously, this material needs to be rewritten for better clarity and agreement, but that doesn't affect the analysis here, only the time it takes to produce it, and whether extra coffee is needed. Any variance sought in a case like this has to rely on a WP:COMMONSENSE/ WP:IAR argument, and/or an argument that WP:Consensus has actually changed or was not correctly reflected in the current guideline wording. See question 13 for the PERFNAV connection in detail; it strongly supports the view that consensus exists and is not quite written in correctly. |
Generally, but it is not a hard-and-fast rule. A 1:1 relationship between what's appears in the navbox and where the navbox appears is ideal, but exceptions are made (though I don't think WP:NAVBOX enumerates any specifically). It doesn't seem applicable here anyway, though it raises WP:FAITACCOMPLI issues. The status quo ante was that the article was linked in the navbox and the navbox appeared in the article; any WP:NAVBOX 1:1 conflict arose as a result of removal of one or the other (on reasonable but in my view ultimately uncertain PERFCAT or PERFNAV grounds, per the above). Removal of both would also resolve it, but obviate the very existence of the navbox, a catch-22 situation.
Detailed analysis 4
|
---|
The PERFNAV material already quoted in analysis 2 can be compressed to: " This does not directly address whether navboxes for a production should appear on the article of someone associated with the production. The general rule of thumb we've been operating under for years is that any subject mentioned in the navbox should have the navbox in its article, and ideally any article with the navbox should have a link to that article in the navbox. The latter half of this is frequently suspended in practice; e.g. many "micro-topics" on football or some other broad subject include the navbox for it, but are too drill-down to warrant their own navbox entries or including the bloats the navbox (disputes about this situation are the main genesis of split-off, subtopical navboxes). So, a 1:1 correlation is desirable but is not strictly observed. Samantha Bee is mentioned in the navbox by name (because her name is in the shows name, whether a link to her article is included in it or not. So the question appears to be moot. One can even argue that simultaneously removing the article from the navbox and vice versa is a fait accompli and circular reasoning, that removing links from the template then TfDing on the basis of too few links is the same, and that arguing simultaneously for applicability of PERFNAV to remove the navbox due to lack of an bio link while denying PERFNAV applicability to include the navbox per its link (or vice versa) is self-contradictory. This dispute was raised by removal, and has been WP:BRDed, repeatedly, so the WP:Consensus default is to return to the status quo ante: the navbox has the link and the link is in the article; so at least the reciprocity aspect of the guideline is satisfied by that version. |
{{Full Frontal with Samantha Bee}}
have a centered heading at the top of it, reading "
Samantha Bee (2016–present) ..."...in the space that some similar templates have article links like "Correspondents • Writers • Guests • Recurring segments • Awards"?
No, for numerous reasons, but the link should remain in some form. This is a Web usability (20+ years experience) and copyediting (ditto) matter; my professional advice is a regular link to the bio, on the same line as other actual links, not imaginary ones hidden in HTML comments.
Several of the questions that follow on this one are of the same character, and have arisen because the navbox author has exactingly duplicated another navbox's layout without any regard for whether it makes sense in this context with this data.
Detailed observations & recommendations 5
|
---|
|
No, obviously. It's dead code and these articles will probably never exist. If the template's creator (or whoever) wants to WP:SANDBOX furture "what if" scenarios, they can do that in userspace. Our reader-facing namespaces (including main, template, category, and portal) are not used for WP:CRYSTAL material, as a matter of policy.
No, just a single line (and maybe on same line as other links), since there's only one entry for each and the latter is subset of the former. I think much of the editwarring over this was due reducing it to nothing but links with no context. The obvious compromises are these:
Examples 7
|
---|
Interpret Episodes here as a header:
Note the style fix: titles of individual TV show episodes go in quotation marks ( MOS:TITLE). This may not even need to be a line of its own. Depending on how it's coded and what remains of links, it's possible all these links could be on a single line, for a nice compact navbox. Or maybe two lines total. To add it on one line with other links, try:
|
No, only with link[s] to the show or shows directly related to this one, which appears to be only the show it is a spinoff of. The fact that the other shows all relate to that one show does not mean they all relate to this one. If I'm friends with John Densmore and Julia Roberts and you're friends with me, it doesn't make you friends with them, or them with each other. It is original research of a particularly forbidden kind to try to "steer" or "lead" the reader into drawing connections an editor wants to them to imagine are strong but which are tenuous or illusory. We apply this to content in templates and even to categories, too.
Four times no. It's more dead code; the target page will likely never exist; this is not how the "Book:" namespace is used (it's used in WP menu interfaces for the most part to autogenerate a "book view" of articles in a series as one document); and it is not what "book" or "books" means in a navbox (that always refers to real-world books, just like everything else in the navbox is to a notable topic or the category for it.
No. It's yet another terrible layout idea. Just include it as a regular link on the same line as other links. It is relevant to include, because the category has more contents than the navbox.
That said, some of the cat. contents may fail PERFCAT, and if the contents of the cat. end up being the same as the navbox, then the cat. link in the navbox would be removed as redundant.
Never, ever. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Template_categorization. Anyone who continues to play "You're not going to change my mind" WP:IDHT games on basic matters like this will end up at WP:ANI. Given that the editor in question has been here for years, I know that they know better (which doesn't make it better, it makes it WP:POINT).
Not on their own. As small bits in the total analysis of our handling of this type of show and host bio, they matter, as much as any article. But any argument that this bio, this show, and templates pertaining the them have to closely match those other two specific topics is baseless. WP likes consistency to an extent, but it is not an end in itself on such matters. It is in WP:AT, WP:MOS, and the category naming system managed by WP:CFD, but those are unrelated to anything under discussion here. We and our readers pretty much totally DGaF about nav templates' consistency; they come in all sorts of styles and appearances and exact layouts, and it really doesn't matter as long as they don't have serous usability FAILs like this one. The primary criterion for a navbox to not suck is efficient use of space, so that it takes up as little space as possible (for the form-factor) while still being easily readable.
Only in spirit. I've already demonstrated above that the idea that "WP:PERFNAV and WP:PERFCAT are silent regarding primary creators of performances" is not true at all; that's what a "performer" is most of the time, and both guidelines also cover writers, producers, directors, crew, etc., though their wording on the matter badly needs clarification and synchronization. It is correct that neither treats primary creators of anything in a special way.
FILMNAV does, and looks relevant, at first: "Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question.
" That certainly describes Bee's relationship to the show. But it isn't applicable to this navbox. The rule is about including film [or TV show] links in a bio navbox, not about including a bio link in a film or TV show navbox; the relationship is backward to our case, and it can't be reversed because the rationales for the rule are applicable to bios not to TV show or film articles (though it could be rewritten to fix this – UNDUE and navbox profusion concerns apply at such articles, they're just not identical to the bio-article ones). If, as I've suggested, this particular navbox is changed into a combined bio/show navbox, like
Template:Howard Stern Show, the question is moot because, well, if it's both combined then it's both combined, and the links are there no matter what.
The one thing we can take away from FILMNAV is a clear consensus intent to treat primary creators of shows (films, whatever) with more WP:CLNT leniency than usual when it comes to navboxes linking them and their works. (And presumably, but not yet explicitly the other way around, for works that are the primary output of one entity). That is fully consistent with my entire analysis above. (Though I believe that integral association between the creator and the creation in the public mind, i.e. in reliable source treatment, is both a more sensible approach and actually a more accurate assessment of the observable de facto consensus; "primary creator of the material" doesn't really get at it (all the material might be written by some non-notable employee), and is one-way.
FILMNAV is yet another place where the guideline needs revision (both to apply this "treat primary creators differently" consensus more clearly, broadly, and both ways – i.e., as I've reformulated it – and to stop tying the FILMNAV wording to visual media in particular; films/TV are not magically special compared to books or music or stage performance or journalism or whatever. We do not draw such a distinction elsewhere, so we shouldn't be accidentally doing it here. Even the shortcut is wrongheaded.
I don't see anything at
WP:OVERCAT or
WP:COP not already covered above.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
10:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay simply put, what is by your personal criteria (even if there's fairly enough evidence on the contrary) a "truly bad sitcom" that absolutely warrants being on that list? Just because you personally don't think that there "that bad" (even if it tips in the favor of "negative") doesn't necessarily mean that they by sheer virtue, don't merit any sort of consideration. If we're going to be so subjective than it's going to be extremely hard to determine something. BornonJune8 ( talk), 00:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Technology update:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:JDDJS, can you take a quick look at the categories of Charlie Kelly (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) and Mac (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) articles please? And let me know if you think their over-categorized or which categories are unnecessary? Thanks, -- Theo Mandela ( talk) 21:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
He is a singer and a songwriter (occupations). The article does not support him being a singer–songwriter (genre). The person already has a cat of singer and of songwriter.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I just skimmed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kallan Holley and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3961562/ says she had a recurring Role as JuJu in Creative Galaxy. This article lacks a character section so I do not know how prominent it is. Interesting in developing CG to find out? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 07:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bitcoin Magazine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted, or merged with Vitalik Buterin. I notified you as you have contributed to Buterin's page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Magazine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Technology update:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Just a thought: he might have been in that category due to the boxing injury while President that left him blind in one eye p b p 00:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The article A Very Potter Musical has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Student musical production with no independent sources nor claim to notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Pincrete (
talk)
07:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The article A Very Potter Sequel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Student musical production with no independent sources nor claim to notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Pincrete (
talk)
07:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like another editor removed Parker Plays from the navbox. Can you check with them on whether it will go back in, along with other Disney D|XP shows? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Technology update:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JDDJS. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Outreach and Invitations:
{{subst:NPR invite}}
. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.New Year New Page Review Drive
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey there. I noticed you reverted the edit I accepted on Blake Shelton. While the change did not have a source, I'll point out that Shelton is specifically mentioned on the Bro-country article which is why I allowed the change in the first place. Thanks! Operator873 CONNECT 23:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JDDJS,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Fix-It Felix Jr should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fix-It Felix Jr .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks,
Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Sandlot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brandon Adams ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for thanking me for reverting vandalism! AnAwesomeArticleEditor ( talk) 00:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC) |
Backlog update:
New Year Backlog Drive results:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with the user who deleted the entire section, but if you think it should be kept I would highly recommend deleting such trivia as "first super hero movie nominated for screenplay", anything where its the first since (fill in the blank) or anything where it isn't the very first time it happened, and all of the other ridiculous details. Its a very silly section.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 19:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
John Oliver is actually running for Prime Minister of Italy. It's not a joke, just like how he opened his own church, Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption. See Time's article: http://time.com/5175069/john-oliver-italy-last-week-tonight/. It's also on the 2018 Italian Election page on Wikipedia. Gabrielmeir53 ( talk) 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Recent Changes Barnstar | |
I may not agree with you and think that only the most notable stuff should be merged into the prose of the article, BUT you're doing a great job at keeping this page from going way too far and I respect your dedication. Deoliveirafan ( talk) 03:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Krysten Ritter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vogue ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
Thanks for thanking me. I always appreciate it. Rock on. UnsungKing123 ( talk) 23:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
I apologize for disruptively editing my sandbox deletions/pages. I thought it was an error in my editor until I saw the warning messages. I have moved my pages to the correct locations. Apologies and thanks again. Dbmcdonough Dbmcdonough ( talk) 00:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello JDDJS, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that if there are more than 5 writers then we shouldn't include them. My bad. Diogatari ( talk) 23:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello JDDJS, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Why do you keep erasing "Drama" I know the 17th season has dark themes and dramatic writing, but my guess is that it's a drama and a cyberpunk tv series. I have seen it with my own 2 eyes and i know how they feel and the music that describes the fight and feelings. Tell me why? I'm not a liar. I just told you the truth! PascalMuganyizi ( talk) 00:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Articles that you have been involved in editing— Eric Forman, Michael Kelso, Steven Hyde, and others—have been proposed for merging with List of That '70s Show characters. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. — A L T E R C A R I ✍ 15:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you plz read this Source about Avery Lee Jones voiceing Slappy by click a link plz https://deadline.com/2018/04/goosebumps-2-cinemacon-sony-1202375147/ so plz read it Sincerely GoosebumpsUk1Fan GoosebumpsUk1Fan ( talk) 16:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Newsies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeremy Jordan ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello there. I notice that you took out the African-American female tennis players category from Naomi Osaka's page with the explanation that "Haiti is not in Africa". I will be restoring that classification but wanted to hear from you directly.
Your removal of the Haitian female tennis players classification is also problematic (given that Osaka identifies as Haitian through her father) but I won't contest that on the technicality that we do not know whether she possesses a Haitian passport.
Any American citizen who has African ancestry is considered African American. An African American does not need to to be a descendant of slaves. A good example is Barack Obama whose father was Kenyan. If you are unfamiliar with the history of Haiti, please read up on it. Kunkuru ( talk) 20:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you need a geography lesson? Haiti is considered to be a part of North America, not Africa. Not every black person is African. I don't know why you mention Obama. Yes, he's African American because his father is from Kenya, which is in Africa, unlike Haiti. JDDJS ( talk) 20:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. You need a history lesson. This is why I suggested you read up on the history of Haiti. Haitian people didn't drop from Planet Mars I promise.
All black people are descended from Africans and majority of blacks outside of Africa, particularly in North America are in the Americas because of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.
I think your motivation for deleting the African American category from Osaka's page is now clear as daylight. Kunkuru ( talk) 20:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello JDDJS, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
You moved page Hannah James (actor) to Hannah James (actress), with the uninformative edit summary "proper gender". You are not the only contributor who wants to return to using old-fashioned terms for occupations. I am 62 years old, and for my entire life, we have been moving away from using language that distinguishes between workers based on their gender. Professional fishermen are called fishers. Firemen are called firefighters. Why would the wikipedia buck this trend, and single out women who act, and use a separate name for their occupation?
Can I assume you made this move without first consulting anyone?
Are you able to link to a wikidocument that justifies moves like the one you made? Geo Swan ( talk) 20:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I made that move a year and a half ago and nobody has ever complained about it before now, so the fact that I didn't consult anyone is completely irrelevant. There is strong precident on here to use actress for female actors. I really don't get what the problem with the term is. Majority of sources use the term actress and Wikipedia is soapbox. JDDJS ( talk) 20:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Why was Power Rangers RPM not a thriller? The show had a lot of drama and a lot of cyberpunk elements from cyberpunk movies, I know it was a dark drama season, why? PascalMuganyizi ( talk) 23:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello JDDJS, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
As of 21 October 2018 [update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Why would you say that? "Having police on the show doesn't make it a police procedural" Why? the characters are in a police procedural because SPD is Police. And they arrest aliens from different dimensions. Why?! I know everything from those Crime shows such as Law and Order & CSI. Why would you say it? PascalMuganyizi ( talk) 22:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, could you not delete the redlinks at Deaths in 2018? They’re deleted after 30 days if they don’t achieve notability in that time. Rusted AutoParts 22:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello JDDJS,
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Please read WP:PERFNAV and WP:PERFCAT. Presenters of TV series do not belong in navboxes for those series, and neither should they be categorised by those series. It's all very clear in the guidelines. Please revert your edits. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I quote: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." If you want to establish a consensus to remove it, that's fine. But there is no direct rule against it. And the cat rule does not apply to crew members, films are always categorized by directors and writers. JDDJS ( talk) 13:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I'm not going to revert my edits. I'm not cherry picking anything. Generally, templates aren't included, but they make it extremely that there is no rule and it comes down to consensus. The cat rule does not apply to writers or producers and never has. JDDJS ( talk) 13:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Robsinden and JDDJS: I accepted the WP:3O since I was pinged anyway as having a background in the applicable guidelines, am unfamiliar with the show or bio other than I've heard the names before (no pro or con bias), am a long-term template editor, have CfD and TfD experience, and don't interact much with either disputing editor, so I can be impartial about it. I've done dispute resolution here before, though am not presently in any of the "bodies" for it listed at WP:DR.
This appears (from edit history) to be about the content (broadly speaking) of both Samantha Bee and Template:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, both of which could affect what appears in Category:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee. There are multiple things at issue; the ones I can pick out so far:
{{
Full Frontal with Samantha Bee}}
on it, or is this against
WP:PERFNAV?{{Full Frontal with Samantha Bee}}
have a centered heading at the top of it, reading "
Samantha Bee (2016–present)", in the space that some similar templates have article links like "Correspondents • Writers • Guests • Recurring segments • Awards"?Is anything missing or incorrectly stated in the above? (I mean anything pertaining to the content or policy/guideline-interpretation disputes, not behavioral complaints; I'm not an admin and carry no banhammer.) For all the template layout questions, the default presumption is "some other layout option is possible"; i.e. it's not a binary choice between exactly what's already been argued over. WP:IAR, when applicable, isn't limited to anything in particular; it can be integrated into examination of the extant line-items and doesn't need its own.
Feel free to ping me with agreement or disagreement with this list of what to cover (and on later responses); I'll be around intermittently all day. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Waited a long time for a pingback. I am going to answer the questions as I've laid them out, to the best of my policy analysis ability. I've done this in more depth that usual because there are some clear problems that need to be resolved in the wording of the guidelines to help prevent disputes like this in the future, and such an analysis is necessary for that to happen.
PERFCAT and PERFNAV are interpreted as a pair, for years now. Consensus is never going to entertain a WP:LAWYER/ WP:GAMING argument that a wording variance between them (or between sections in them) means anything other than that they need to have their exact wording synched again better (which I will go suggest after I'm done here, because the inconsistency leads to disputes like this one). So, let's just not wander off in that direction. See also WP:P&G and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY: WP policies and guidelines are interpreted in the spirt they were intended and in the way in which they interoperate, never with an eye to loophole exploitation, over-literal nit-pick readings, or in ways that make the contradict each other [when such an interpretation can be avoided; actual conflicts have occurred].
I'm inclined to say "yes", on balance, and after a whole lot of guideline interpretation (and reversing my original "no" instinct). It ultimately resolves to a WP:Common sense matter, and the majority of individual categories on talk and variety shows do the same with people integrally identified with such a show in the public mind. This is clearly either a strong WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or (more likely, since I can't find a discussion concluding to do this programmatically) it is actually evolved general consensus, and the guideline should be updated. I would think it would require either an RfC or a cleanup CfD, addressing these categories all at once, to undo it. Undoing it might be bad idea, because the practice is helpful to readers, the categorization would be confusing without it, and it does not trigger the WP:UNDUE and WP:OVERCAT concerns that are behind WP:PERFCAT.
Detailed analysis 1
|
---|
WP:PERFCAT is largely about creating new categories, but the general advice is applicable to inserting someone into an existing one; that's been discussed many times before, it simply doesn't come up as frequently. Grenschlep's hand-waving argument that PERFCAT somehow doesn't apply to Bee is clearly incorrect. PERCAT's examples include use of "artists", "performers", and "entertainers" as blanket entertainment industry terms for people in the field. Bee is obviously included in any and all capacities with regard to the show. There is no word anyone can apply to her (writer, originator, host, star, director, showrunner, etc.) that acts as a magical escape clause. The fact that the page-top discussion about "performers" focuses on actors, musicians, comedians, etc. is irrelevant when later clarification in the page includes production people. However, Bee also qualifies as a comedian; her show is a satire program. The basic rule (in pertinent part), under Performers by series or performance venue: " The actual practice is to usually include the main hosts (talk and sometimes musical) of such shows in the individual shows' categories, when they are considered utterly integral to the show (or a very long run of it) in the public mind. We see this at, to just pick a few examples: Category:The Tonight Show, where it lists a few of the longest-running people on the show, but omits shorter-running ones who are just as famous (e.g. George Carlin, one of Johnny Carson's most frequent substitutes over 30-odd years but not for entire seasons); Category:Late Night (NBC) and its subcategories (importantly here: even when the name of the show already includes the name of the host); the subcats of Category:The Late Late Show (U.S. TV series) (same note as the for the last example); Category:The Late Late Show (Irish TV series), Category:The Daily Show, Category:Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, Category:America's Got Talent, Category:Australia's Got Talent, Category:Late Show with David Letterman; and many others. Curious exceptions are Category:The Late Show with Stephen Colbert (includes Stephen Colbert (character) but not Stephen Colbert bio) and Category:Britain's Got Talent (includes no one). That there are some gaps is normal for Wikipedia (thousands of volunteer editors working randomly; perfection is not required). The number of categories for individual talk and variety shows with their own categories is quite small, so an exhaustive examination of them doesn't take long. Most of them follow the pattern of including key figures. This is practice is not applied to actors on fictional shows (the main thing PERFCAT was written to address as a category profusion problem); e.g.: Category:M*A*S*H, Category:24 (TV series), Category:Doctor Who. Some of these categories do presently include key production people (as at: Category:Breaking Bad, Category:Game of Thrones, Category:Saturday Night Live which is predominantly fictional skits, etc.), but this is not done frequently or consistently; an RfC would probably remove them. I.e., it is not evidence of a WP consensus to include production people generally. Because the show is entirely focused on Bee, it is clearly desirable for some category link between Bee and her show to remain, or the category system would confuse readers rather than help them. The purpose of our category system is primarily as a means of reader navigation to related material (internal maintenance purposes are secondary). Bee has no category of her own, into which her show's category could be be put. This rationale would not apply to a show with dozens of notable people associated with it, nor to someone not closely identified with the show and vice-versa; otherwise the "include key people" practice would not be so tightly constrained as it is; editors concerned about PERFCAT would have dealt with them and consensus would have agreed with them. There is clearly at least a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for this practice, just one we have not either a) written down or b) overturned with an RfC. It's so frequent and so nearly consistent for talk and variety shows' categories that I think it would take an RfC or mass cleanup CfD to undo it, because it appears genuinely useful for readers, and triggers neither the WP:UNDUE nor WP:OVERCAT concerns behind the PERFCAT guideline. One issue with it would be that it could inspire profusion, e.g. of actors, etc., which is why I suggest it should either be removed from all of these cats. or put into the guideline as a special rule. |
{{
Full Frontal with Samantha Bee}}
navbox on it?"Yes, as standard operating procedure for cases of a close connection between the bio and such a show, and no good reason not to. Bee is mentioned (and in one editor's preferred revision prominently linked) in the navbox, and she and her show are obviously relevant to each other and closely connected (i.e., there is a navigation need). None of WP:PERFNAV's rationales are triggered: There are no WP:UNDUE concerns (e.g. if a particular movie's navbox were on the page of an actor with a long career, giving undue weight to one film, or the navbox was only on that one actor's article, giving undue weight to one bio among many notables in the film). Nor are there any profusion-of-navboxes concerns (i.e., multiple shows, bio subject having her own navbox, subject notable for more than one thing with navboxes, etc.). This, too, is a candidate for either a multi-article RfC or a guideline clarification. The apparent intent behind WP:FILMNAV suggests that it should be clarification, not deletion.
Detailed analysis 2
|
---|
The
WP:PERFNAV material cited: " Samantha Bee is mentioned in the navbox by name (whether that name is linked or not, a different matter, below), so it would be "user-hateful" rather than user-friendly for us to not have the navbox on her page. It largely would defeat the purpose of the navobox's existence. There's a strong argument for making this a combined bio/show navbox. There are solid precedents for this, such as the Howard Stern and The Howard Stern Show navbox. The last thing we want is two navboxes that mostly overlap. TfD will determine whether one at all is needed here, but while it exists it would seem to belong on the article. We should proceed as if it will be kept. PERFCAT's only stated rationales are undue weight (does not apply in this case) and navbox profusion at the article (also does not apply here). We might revise this assessment years from now if Bee's career diversifies, or if the show changes hands, or other various other conditions. Similar talk show host bios of comparable people (notable especially as hosts of particular talk/variety shows with navboxes about the shows) typically have the navboxes on the bio article: Johnny Carson, John Oliver, Craig Kilborn, Craig Ferguson, Jon Stewart, Steve Allen, Jack Parr, Gerry Ryan, Pat Kenny (arguably has navbox overkill), Ryan Tubridy (ditto), Gay Byrne, Larry Wilmore, Alex Magala, Brandy Norwood, and Stephen Colbert (character) (see below for bio). There are exceptions to the inclusion, which can be generally catalogued with clear rationales we simply haven't put into the guideline yet:
Both O'Brien and Leno do have navboxes about The Tonight Show, but highly specific ones rather than the general one. Stephen Colbert is an unusual case; Stephen Colbert (character) is in the relevant shows' categories but neither is true of Stephen Colbert, the bio. Obviously, some hosts, like Dick Cavett and Jonathan Ross, have no such navbox, because there isn't one for their show(s). And a few articles on people notable for multiple things have an undue show navbox that should be removed, e.g. Howard Stern's for America's Got Talent. Inclusion is sometimes even applied to a show's long-term bandleaders, e.g. Doc Severinsen, and some have their own cat. under the show cat., e.g. Category:CBS Orchestra members; these are rare, presumably because a very strong association with the show is uncommon, and the individuals are usually notable for prior musical work. This case is very simple, and the single navbox doubles as both a show and a bio navbox, whether explicitly or not. Depending upon one's interpretation of PERFCAT, this may be another case where we either need to codify an exception, or do an RfC to impose a more strict interpretation of PERFCAT tightly across an entire class of articles. However, the WP:FILMNAV material at the end of these analyses provides additional very strong evidence of such a consensus, of exactly the kind I've described, between a work that primarily is [or is seen as] that of a particular bio subject, where the bio subject is [or is seen as] its primary creator. It's just poorly articulated and integrated, like much of the rest of these guidelines. It appears that the exception exists, but has been so poorly written it is one-way (work info in bio navbox) and daftly only includes video media. |
Yes to the first, no to the second. This is quite clear. The short version: They're interpreted as having the same applicability, despite wording differences. They apply to everyone in the arts and infotainment sphere, because the examples given are "not limited to" those examples, and they include both on-camera and behind-the-scene roles. This has long been the interpretation at WP:CFD, etc. But their general applicability does not mean they are rigidly enforced like laws, especially when another one, FILMNAV, appears at least in intent to provide an explicit exception, though it fails to in its exact wording.
Detailed analysis 3
|
---|
The end. There is no question about this matter at all, and it is the standard interpretation. Obviously, this material needs to be rewritten for better clarity and agreement, but that doesn't affect the analysis here, only the time it takes to produce it, and whether extra coffee is needed. Any variance sought in a case like this has to rely on a WP:COMMONSENSE/ WP:IAR argument, and/or an argument that WP:Consensus has actually changed or was not correctly reflected in the current guideline wording. See question 13 for the PERFNAV connection in detail; it strongly supports the view that consensus exists and is not quite written in correctly. |
Generally, but it is not a hard-and-fast rule. A 1:1 relationship between what's appears in the navbox and where the navbox appears is ideal, but exceptions are made (though I don't think WP:NAVBOX enumerates any specifically). It doesn't seem applicable here anyway, though it raises WP:FAITACCOMPLI issues. The status quo ante was that the article was linked in the navbox and the navbox appeared in the article; any WP:NAVBOX 1:1 conflict arose as a result of removal of one or the other (on reasonable but in my view ultimately uncertain PERFCAT or PERFNAV grounds, per the above). Removal of both would also resolve it, but obviate the very existence of the navbox, a catch-22 situation.
Detailed analysis 4
|
---|
The PERFNAV material already quoted in analysis 2 can be compressed to: " This does not directly address whether navboxes for a production should appear on the article of someone associated with the production. The general rule of thumb we've been operating under for years is that any subject mentioned in the navbox should have the navbox in its article, and ideally any article with the navbox should have a link to that article in the navbox. The latter half of this is frequently suspended in practice; e.g. many "micro-topics" on football or some other broad subject include the navbox for it, but are too drill-down to warrant their own navbox entries or including the bloats the navbox (disputes about this situation are the main genesis of split-off, subtopical navboxes). So, a 1:1 correlation is desirable but is not strictly observed. Samantha Bee is mentioned in the navbox by name (because her name is in the shows name, whether a link to her article is included in it or not. So the question appears to be moot. One can even argue that simultaneously removing the article from the navbox and vice versa is a fait accompli and circular reasoning, that removing links from the template then TfDing on the basis of too few links is the same, and that arguing simultaneously for applicability of PERFNAV to remove the navbox due to lack of an bio link while denying PERFNAV applicability to include the navbox per its link (or vice versa) is self-contradictory. This dispute was raised by removal, and has been WP:BRDed, repeatedly, so the WP:Consensus default is to return to the status quo ante: the navbox has the link and the link is in the article; so at least the reciprocity aspect of the guideline is satisfied by that version. |
{{Full Frontal with Samantha Bee}}
have a centered heading at the top of it, reading "
Samantha Bee (2016–present) ..."...in the space that some similar templates have article links like "Correspondents • Writers • Guests • Recurring segments • Awards"?
No, for numerous reasons, but the link should remain in some form. This is a Web usability (20+ years experience) and copyediting (ditto) matter; my professional advice is a regular link to the bio, on the same line as other actual links, not imaginary ones hidden in HTML comments.
Several of the questions that follow on this one are of the same character, and have arisen because the navbox author has exactingly duplicated another navbox's layout without any regard for whether it makes sense in this context with this data.
Detailed observations & recommendations 5
|
---|
|
No, obviously. It's dead code and these articles will probably never exist. If the template's creator (or whoever) wants to WP:SANDBOX furture "what if" scenarios, they can do that in userspace. Our reader-facing namespaces (including main, template, category, and portal) are not used for WP:CRYSTAL material, as a matter of policy.
No, just a single line (and maybe on same line as other links), since there's only one entry for each and the latter is subset of the former. I think much of the editwarring over this was due reducing it to nothing but links with no context. The obvious compromises are these:
Examples 7
|
---|
Interpret Episodes here as a header:
Note the style fix: titles of individual TV show episodes go in quotation marks ( MOS:TITLE). This may not even need to be a line of its own. Depending on how it's coded and what remains of links, it's possible all these links could be on a single line, for a nice compact navbox. Or maybe two lines total. To add it on one line with other links, try:
|
No, only with link[s] to the show or shows directly related to this one, which appears to be only the show it is a spinoff of. The fact that the other shows all relate to that one show does not mean they all relate to this one. If I'm friends with John Densmore and Julia Roberts and you're friends with me, it doesn't make you friends with them, or them with each other. It is original research of a particularly forbidden kind to try to "steer" or "lead" the reader into drawing connections an editor wants to them to imagine are strong but which are tenuous or illusory. We apply this to content in templates and even to categories, too.
Four times no. It's more dead code; the target page will likely never exist; this is not how the "Book:" namespace is used (it's used in WP menu interfaces for the most part to autogenerate a "book view" of articles in a series as one document); and it is not what "book" or "books" means in a navbox (that always refers to real-world books, just like everything else in the navbox is to a notable topic or the category for it.
No. It's yet another terrible layout idea. Just include it as a regular link on the same line as other links. It is relevant to include, because the category has more contents than the navbox.
That said, some of the cat. contents may fail PERFCAT, and if the contents of the cat. end up being the same as the navbox, then the cat. link in the navbox would be removed as redundant.
Never, ever. See Wikipedia:Categorization#Template_categorization. Anyone who continues to play "You're not going to change my mind" WP:IDHT games on basic matters like this will end up at WP:ANI. Given that the editor in question has been here for years, I know that they know better (which doesn't make it better, it makes it WP:POINT).
Not on their own. As small bits in the total analysis of our handling of this type of show and host bio, they matter, as much as any article. But any argument that this bio, this show, and templates pertaining the them have to closely match those other two specific topics is baseless. WP likes consistency to an extent, but it is not an end in itself on such matters. It is in WP:AT, WP:MOS, and the category naming system managed by WP:CFD, but those are unrelated to anything under discussion here. We and our readers pretty much totally DGaF about nav templates' consistency; they come in all sorts of styles and appearances and exact layouts, and it really doesn't matter as long as they don't have serous usability FAILs like this one. The primary criterion for a navbox to not suck is efficient use of space, so that it takes up as little space as possible (for the form-factor) while still being easily readable.
Only in spirit. I've already demonstrated above that the idea that "WP:PERFNAV and WP:PERFCAT are silent regarding primary creators of performances" is not true at all; that's what a "performer" is most of the time, and both guidelines also cover writers, producers, directors, crew, etc., though their wording on the matter badly needs clarification and synchronization. It is correct that neither treats primary creators of anything in a special way.
FILMNAV does, and looks relevant, at first: "Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question.
" That certainly describes Bee's relationship to the show. But it isn't applicable to this navbox. The rule is about including film [or TV show] links in a bio navbox, not about including a bio link in a film or TV show navbox; the relationship is backward to our case, and it can't be reversed because the rationales for the rule are applicable to bios not to TV show or film articles (though it could be rewritten to fix this – UNDUE and navbox profusion concerns apply at such articles, they're just not identical to the bio-article ones). If, as I've suggested, this particular navbox is changed into a combined bio/show navbox, like
Template:Howard Stern Show, the question is moot because, well, if it's both combined then it's both combined, and the links are there no matter what.
The one thing we can take away from FILMNAV is a clear consensus intent to treat primary creators of shows (films, whatever) with more WP:CLNT leniency than usual when it comes to navboxes linking them and their works. (And presumably, but not yet explicitly the other way around, for works that are the primary output of one entity). That is fully consistent with my entire analysis above. (Though I believe that integral association between the creator and the creation in the public mind, i.e. in reliable source treatment, is both a more sensible approach and actually a more accurate assessment of the observable de facto consensus; "primary creator of the material" doesn't really get at it (all the material might be written by some non-notable employee), and is one-way.
FILMNAV is yet another place where the guideline needs revision (both to apply this "treat primary creators differently" consensus more clearly, broadly, and both ways – i.e., as I've reformulated it – and to stop tying the FILMNAV wording to visual media in particular; films/TV are not magically special compared to books or music or stage performance or journalism or whatever. We do not draw such a distinction elsewhere, so we shouldn't be accidentally doing it here. Even the shortcut is wrongheaded.
I don't see anything at
WP:OVERCAT or
WP:COP not already covered above.
—
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼
10:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay simply put, what is by your personal criteria (even if there's fairly enough evidence on the contrary) a "truly bad sitcom" that absolutely warrants being on that list? Just because you personally don't think that there "that bad" (even if it tips in the favor of "negative") doesn't necessarily mean that they by sheer virtue, don't merit any sort of consideration. If we're going to be so subjective than it's going to be extremely hard to determine something. BornonJune8 ( talk), 00:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Technology update:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:JDDJS, can you take a quick look at the categories of Charlie Kelly (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) and Mac (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia) articles please? And let me know if you think their over-categorized or which categories are unnecessary? Thanks, -- Theo Mandela ( talk) 21:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
He is a singer and a songwriter (occupations). The article does not support him being a singer–songwriter (genre). The person already has a cat of singer and of songwriter.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I just skimmed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kallan Holley and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3961562/ says she had a recurring Role as JuJu in Creative Galaxy. This article lacks a character section so I do not know how prominent it is. Interesting in developing CG to find out? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 07:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bitcoin Magazine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted, or merged with Vitalik Buterin. I notified you as you have contributed to Buterin's page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Magazine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Technology update:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Just a thought: he might have been in that category due to the boxing injury while President that left him blind in one eye p b p 00:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The article A Very Potter Musical has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Student musical production with no independent sources nor claim to notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Pincrete (
talk)
07:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The article A Very Potter Sequel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Student musical production with no independent sources nor claim to notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Pincrete (
talk)
07:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like another editor removed Parker Plays from the navbox. Can you check with them on whether it will go back in, along with other Disney D|XP shows? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 01:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Technology update:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JDDJS. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Backlog update:
Outreach and Invitations:
{{subst:NPR invite}}
. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.New Year New Page Review Drive
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey there. I noticed you reverted the edit I accepted on Blake Shelton. While the change did not have a source, I'll point out that Shelton is specifically mentioned on the Bro-country article which is why I allowed the change in the first place. Thanks! Operator873 CONNECT 23:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JDDJS,
I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Fix-It Felix Jr should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fix-It Felix Jr .
If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
Thanks,
Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 10:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Sandlot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brandon Adams ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for thanking me for reverting vandalism! AnAwesomeArticleEditor ( talk) 00:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC) |
Backlog update:
New Year Backlog Drive results:
General project update:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with the user who deleted the entire section, but if you think it should be kept I would highly recommend deleting such trivia as "first super hero movie nominated for screenplay", anything where its the first since (fill in the blank) or anything where it isn't the very first time it happened, and all of the other ridiculous details. Its a very silly section.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 19:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
John Oliver is actually running for Prime Minister of Italy. It's not a joke, just like how he opened his own church, Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption. See Time's article: http://time.com/5175069/john-oliver-italy-last-week-tonight/. It's also on the 2018 Italian Election page on Wikipedia. Gabrielmeir53 ( talk) 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Recent Changes Barnstar | |
I may not agree with you and think that only the most notable stuff should be merged into the prose of the article, BUT you're doing a great job at keeping this page from going way too far and I respect your dedication. Deoliveirafan ( talk) 03:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC) |
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Krysten Ritter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vogue ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Paid editing
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
News
Thanks for thanking me. I always appreciate it. Rock on. UnsungKing123 ( talk) 23:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
I apologize for disruptively editing my sandbox deletions/pages. I thought it was an error in my editor until I saw the warning messages. I have moved my pages to the correct locations. Apologies and thanks again. Dbmcdonough Dbmcdonough ( talk) 00:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello JDDJS, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that if there are more than 5 writers then we shouldn't include them. My bad. Diogatari ( talk) 23:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello JDDJS, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Why do you keep erasing "Drama" I know the 17th season has dark themes and dramatic writing, but my guess is that it's a drama and a cyberpunk tv series. I have seen it with my own 2 eyes and i know how they feel and the music that describes the fight and feelings. Tell me why? I'm not a liar. I just told you the truth! PascalMuganyizi ( talk) 00:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Articles that you have been involved in editing— Eric Forman, Michael Kelso, Steven Hyde, and others—have been proposed for merging with List of That '70s Show characters. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. — A L T E R C A R I ✍ 15:15, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you plz read this Source about Avery Lee Jones voiceing Slappy by click a link plz https://deadline.com/2018/04/goosebumps-2-cinemacon-sony-1202375147/ so plz read it Sincerely GoosebumpsUk1Fan GoosebumpsUk1Fan ( talk) 16:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Newsies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeremy Jordan ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello there. I notice that you took out the African-American female tennis players category from Naomi Osaka's page with the explanation that "Haiti is not in Africa". I will be restoring that classification but wanted to hear from you directly.
Your removal of the Haitian female tennis players classification is also problematic (given that Osaka identifies as Haitian through her father) but I won't contest that on the technicality that we do not know whether she possesses a Haitian passport.
Any American citizen who has African ancestry is considered African American. An African American does not need to to be a descendant of slaves. A good example is Barack Obama whose father was Kenyan. If you are unfamiliar with the history of Haiti, please read up on it. Kunkuru ( talk) 20:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Do you need a geography lesson? Haiti is considered to be a part of North America, not Africa. Not every black person is African. I don't know why you mention Obama. Yes, he's African American because his father is from Kenya, which is in Africa, unlike Haiti. JDDJS ( talk) 20:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Sigh. You need a history lesson. This is why I suggested you read up on the history of Haiti. Haitian people didn't drop from Planet Mars I promise.
All black people are descended from Africans and majority of blacks outside of Africa, particularly in North America are in the Americas because of the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.
I think your motivation for deleting the African American category from Osaka's page is now clear as daylight. Kunkuru ( talk) 20:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello JDDJS, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
You moved page Hannah James (actor) to Hannah James (actress), with the uninformative edit summary "proper gender". You are not the only contributor who wants to return to using old-fashioned terms for occupations. I am 62 years old, and for my entire life, we have been moving away from using language that distinguishes between workers based on their gender. Professional fishermen are called fishers. Firemen are called firefighters. Why would the wikipedia buck this trend, and single out women who act, and use a separate name for their occupation?
Can I assume you made this move without first consulting anyone?
Are you able to link to a wikidocument that justifies moves like the one you made? Geo Swan ( talk) 20:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I made that move a year and a half ago and nobody has ever complained about it before now, so the fact that I didn't consult anyone is completely irrelevant. There is strong precident on here to use actress for female actors. I really don't get what the problem with the term is. Majority of sources use the term actress and Wikipedia is soapbox. JDDJS ( talk) 20:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Why was Power Rangers RPM not a thriller? The show had a lot of drama and a lot of cyberpunk elements from cyberpunk movies, I know it was a dark drama season, why? PascalMuganyizi ( talk) 23:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello JDDJS, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
As of 21 October 2018 [update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Why would you say that? "Having police on the show doesn't make it a police procedural" Why? the characters are in a police procedural because SPD is Police. And they arrest aliens from different dimensions. Why?! I know everything from those Crime shows such as Law and Order & CSI. Why would you say it? PascalMuganyizi ( talk) 22:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, could you not delete the redlinks at Deaths in 2018? They’re deleted after 30 days if they don’t achieve notability in that time. Rusted AutoParts 22:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello JDDJS,
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)