Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 13

Agreed, a layer-cake of comments, policy changes, and whatever else is in there. Too much for the average Wikipedian (me?) to tumble though and digest without a scorecard, so the good-faith but maybe too-much format will limit comments. The language now, which includes 'primary creators', seems fine, and would include the main creators of a work (screenwriter, director, editor, etc.) Randy Kryn (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: The comments coming in already are useful. If nothing else, they prove conclusively that the problems I've identified are real. The commenters so far sharply disagree with each other on even the most basic things in how to interpret the extant guideline wording, and they're even disputing the validity of some discussions that lead to it. I'm inclined to let this run a while for the input (which is what RfCs are actually for, not for issuing rulings), then will be happy to reformulate with you based on what people say. That will be a better version than an SMcCandlish+TonyTheTiger version (even if that would be better than a just-SMcCandlish version).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:RFC is getting input from other editors, and that's what was happening. It need have run the full length, I said so, and that this is an input gathering exercise for a later draft. I was looking forward to working with you on drafting something new, but it's hard to feel enthused about that when I'm verbally attacked, and you revert a standard-operating-procedure refactor of discussion to discussion section.

Just to try to right things (I don't think shaking my fist at you further is going to help matters), I have removed the RfC tag, just for you. I really do want the issues resolved, and "me" getting "my" RfC has nothing to do with it; I'm not proprietary about these things, but I do care about he prorpriety of them (i.e., not hijacking RfCs; that's the last time I'll raise the objection). Hopefully further input will still be forthcoming even with no RfC tag on it.

Can we now get on to your proposed solutions, what you think the problems actually are, and what it is you think I'm wrong about? I would suggest a new section for this.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

 ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think a major problem is that you don't include in the options "Leave it as is". The language now is specific enough, and with the words " unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question" the guideline includes adding screenwriters, directors, and some composers to the templates, which is fine and what much of the discussion above was about. Maybe a definition of what 'primary creator' is, but I Oppose removing that clear language, which is what you are doing with your alternate suggestions. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

We're just talking past each other and circularly on this. You don't understand what I proposed or why, which I guess is my fault. To reiterate: the problem is that this focus on job titles is a red herring and is a causing endless disputes. What actually matters is reader expectation of navigability, which has nothing to do with job titles. Nor does it have anything to do, instrinsically, with "primary creator". The primary creator of many TV shows, etc., is barely a public figure, and no reader expect navigation about them in such cases, but may have a strong expectation with regard to someone else publicly and strongly identified with it in a unique way (so, no, it does not apply to Shatner and Star Trek, etc., but clearly does apply Howard Stern and The Howard Stern Show. The other problem is that the wording of the two guidelines conflict with each other and even with themselves is ridiculously obvious, gameable, but fixable ways, and should just be fixed. The future proof way to do that is to front-load them both with the same definitional list that basically amounts to "yes, we mean everyone in the industry; any exceptions for particular things will be detailed below", and transclude this into both guidelines so they are always in synch. But whatever; I've had a discussion with TonyTheTiger and he's drafting a totally different kind of RfC that should at least get some answers to part of one of these questions, and that will be enough to build something on that is clearer, later.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:FILMNAV

is misinterpreted as film- and TV-only, and unidirectional; uses misleading wording

It reads: "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."

Problems:

• This is often interpreted as applying only to filmographies and TVographies, to make up a word. The intent was to apply to bibliographies and all other lists-of-work, and it has nothing to do with visual media in particular, but people can and will argue that it does, sometimes to the point of invoking dispute resolution processes. The shortcut itself is misleading and should be replaced with something like WP:WORKNAV. It should also be rewritten: "Filmographies, bibliographies, and other lists of work ..."
• "Primary creator" is a red herring. The actual writer of something is often a non-notable studio hack (especially when it comes to TV material, books with the nominal or marketing authorship of a celeb but actually written by a ghost writer, etc.). Even some TV and film directors and producers are non-notable. The primary creator is sometimes a studio executive uninvolved in later production (e.g., was hired away by another studio). And the primary creator of something long-running may change over time (e.g. Doctor Who has had several eras of creative control and "vision" by different individuals). Frankly, we usually do not navbox or categorize on a "primary creator" basis at all, despite the wording there.
• What WP actually cares about for nav purposes is near-inseparable reader identification of A with B, which creates a strong expectation of navigation links (the point of thinking WP is missing an article). So rewrite this part to something like "... unless there is an integral identification of the individual with the work in the public mind" (this also avoids clumsy "of the material in question" wording). Using an "integral identification [or association] of A with B" standard will have applicability in other areas (see below). Such a standard also more accurately describes actual practice here (see my detailed analysis for proof of this).
• FILMNAV only works one-way, as written. I.e. it does not offer any guidance at all about inclusion of an individual in a navbox about a work, only inclusion of works in individual bio navboxes. This is clearly an accidental oversight, and what brought me to do this analysis and RfC was, in part, an argument that FILMNAV only applied to bio infoboxes. We're reminded at
  WP:GAMING
  that WP policies and guidelines are meant to be interpreted as to their spirit and intent, not the exact wording, but the older the project gets (and the more institutional memory we lose by old hands retiring from edit) the more people lean toward exact-wording [mis]interpretations; we should thus fix the wording.

Proposed clarified version:
{{shortcut|WP:WORKNAV}}A filmography, bibliography, or other list of work should not be included in an individual's navbox, nor an individual included in a navbox for a work, unless there is an integral identification in the public mind of the individual with the work (or with a long-term span of it, e.g.

Comments

• Oppose. I think this is unworkable. It is even more open to interpretation than what we have now. Whilst I appreciate that the current wording is not ideal, and appreciate your efforts to try to improve this, what we'll end up with here is an undefined jumble of director, producer, writer, executive producer, and even actor roles. I'm sure in the public mind, there is an integral identification of William Shatner with Star Trek, for example. I think the real issue is that over time, certain editors have decided to create navboxes for just about everything. The "studio hack" in your comments above probably shouldn't be given a navbox to start with. In fact, why not leave this all to category navigation
  WP:MOSFILM only mentions director or film series navboxes. Tony's wording led to us starting to see navboxes for composers and other crew members, which was why we had to come up with the "primary creator" rule. If you substitute "author", does that work? --woodensuperman (talk
  ) 14:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • • Replied in "Extended discussion".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Doing a bit of background reading into how we got here, and I really don't think this RFC was closed correctly. --woodensuperman (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Replied in "Extended discussion".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Also, you have a contradiction with your proposal below, which states that crew members shouldn't go in a navbox for a work, but the wording above would allow for this, opening another loophole. --woodensuperman (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not possible for a crew member to be integrally identified with a work in the public mind, because they're all random names in a huge string of credits, and none of them are part of the general public gestalt at all. The point of the definition is to include the entire infotainment industry, and to use the same wording in both guidelines, applicable to every aspect of them. That some occupational entries in the definition will never qualify for certain line-items in the two guidelines is incidentally and irrelevant.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Couldn't it allow for a director of a film series to be included in that series' navbox? This could lead to
      WP:NAVBOXCREEP if said director was integrally identified with multiple film series. --woodensuperman (talk
      ) 12:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• I support your efforts to expand this into other spheres though! --woodensuperman (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Replied in "Extended discussion".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your considered responses, as always, and giving me a better idea as to the direction you're heading with this. I'm changing to support in principle, even if the wording isn't finalised. You have a good handle on this. --woodensuperman (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as the present language concerning 'principal creators' is fine, and includes directors, writers, editors, composers for musicals, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't think of a single example where "primary creator" could extend to an editor. --woodensuperman (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Maybe a bit of a stretch, it depends on the definition of 'primary creator'. Sally Menke may be considered one. Could even consider Gregg Toland as a primary creator of Citizen Kane. If it literally means 'at the beginning', then the screenwriter comes first, followed by the director and in many cases the projects main producer and, if a musical, the composer. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

@Woodensuperman: Re, " I'm sure in the public mind, there is an integral identification of William Shatner with Star Trek" – Then the wording needs further work. There is not at all an integral identification between Shatner and Star Trek, which (in all its versions) had an ensemble cast all of whom are independently world-recognized stars. I chose "identified/identification" for a reason; it doesn't mean "association" or "connection". It means "when I think of the original Twilight Zone the one person who comes to mind is Rod Serling. When I think of Rod Serling the one thing that comes to mind is The Twilight Zone." That's identification. So, maybe there's a better way to formulate this. The fact is, our actual practice in categorization and navboxing is to permit such inclusions (sometimes to the point of merging navboxes and probably also categories; cf. the Howard Stern [Show] example. We're doing it quite consistently with talk shows, and the pattern is very clear in those: the main hosts are included in the category and show navoboxes, and the shows appear in their navboxes; no one is treated this way other than the main host for many years (or the only host). And it makes sense, as a reader navigation matter, even if an editor thinking only of the editorial maintenance viewpoint might prefer no cross-categorization and cross-navboxing. It's the job of most of our guidelines to describe actual practice [of experienced Wikipedians, not noobs], rather than to try to force it into what someone thinks practice should be, especially when doing the former helps readers and doing the latter serves no one but editors. PS: I did catch myself using "association" instead of "identification" in one later bit, and corrected that.

Re, 'If you substitute "author", does that work?' – I'm skeptical that "author" works, because that's a term that applies to written media, and for film and TV is implies scriptwriting, only. But the jobs are not even comparable across the two media; the scriptwriter of a film usually has a tremendous amount of creative input, but a TV show script writer is usually one of a near-anonymous pool who trade off episode by episode. Even the strongly notable ones with a lot of creative control over various shows (e.g. Frank Spotnitz on The X-Files – where scriptwriting was not his main role, just something he did for key "mythology" episodes he was directing and producing) did not have unique and total control, and he's not integrally identified with the show or vice versa.

The bigger problem, to me, is this is still an exercise in "internal WP categorization geekery" thinking (and I say that as a WP category geek). There is no reason for a rule to permit/exclude on the basis of particular job roles in relation to a work, when what matters is reader expectation – inseparable public identification of person with work and vice versa. You think "Johnny Carson", you think The Tonight Show; if you're in my age range, you think The Tonight Show, you think Johnny Carson (a generation younger and you'll think of someone else, with an equally strong identification of the person with the work). This would be true no matter who created the show nor who was writing it. Talk show hosts certainly do not write all their own material; they have entire staffs writing this stuff, and they're not behind the camera so they're not directors, either; nor are they usually producers until late in the game. It's not the job title that matters here, it's the navigational expectation. When the bio and the show share a name, the identification and expectation is particularly strong (e.g. Samantha Bee and her show, Stern and his). To go back to my childhood, The Monkees (TV show) is integrally identified with the band, but was not created by them; they were hireling actor/musicians, and the fictional band did not exist. The band formed for real, recorded albums, and went on tours after the show became popular. The nav expectation would still be there, even though they're the diametric opposite of "primary creators" of the show, and had virtually no input into it at all. No one really remembers or cares who was the primary creator of the show.

Honestly, I really have put a lot of thought into this; the change direction I'm suggesting is not trivial or willy-nilly, but designed to get to the core of multiple interpretation, applicability, common sense, and encyclopedic purpose issues raised by the current wording, yet by not actually changing the wording very much – mostly making it more consistent.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Re, "how we got here ... I really don't think this RFC was closed correctly." – That's not how I got here, so I'm not sure what you mean. Skimming it, it's clear that a consensus for the proposal ("Should we restrict filmographies included in navboxes to directors for films and series creators for TV shows?") was not reached. The question doesn't actually make much sense. A film director and a TV series creator are not comparable roles in most cases. "Show creator" is usually more akin to "executive producer with creative control". How would you have closed that RfC? And how does that affect the wording and interpretation problems in these two guidelines?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Re, "I support your efforts to expand this into other spheres" – Then the wording needs further work, since that's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to limit it, i.e. to close the "directors, producers, scriptwriters and other production people have a magical loophole exception to this guideline and to that one" and "crew are exempt from this one over there because it only says 'performers'", and other such GAMING and LAWYER nonsense, which is intensely disruptive and has been going on for years. This guideline is supposed to be about encyclopedic navigational relevance to readers, not about job titles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:PERFCAT

It reads: "Avoid adding performances of entertainers into the navboxes for the productions that they appeared in, or crew members into navboxes for the productions they worked on. This includes, but is not limited to actors/actresses, comedians, television/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc. This avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of performer's articles, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others."

Problems:

• Despite an intent to cover the entire infotainment industry, it is subject to intense wikilawyering because a) it specifies "performances" in particular; b) it separates performers/entertainers and crew in the first part then only mentions performers/entertainers in the second (i.e., appears to exempt non-performers from UNDUE concerns); and c) it includes no production-people examples (and anyone in that industry does not consider them "crew"; crew are people like camera operators, set builders, and makeup artists, not producers, directors, and scriptwriters, who are "production").
• Has repetitive wording.
• "actors/actresses" is redundant.
• Incorrect comma usage.
• Example list does not match
  WP:PERFCAT
  , so make it do so to avoid perception of a loophole/exemption and pointless disputes arising about it.

Proposed clarified version:
For a navbox about a work or franchise, avoid adding entertainers, crew members, or production staff. This includes, but is not limited to, performers such as actors, comedians, dancers, models, television/radio presenters and other orators, singers, etc.; and production people, such as set crew, writers, composers, directors, producers, etc. This avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of individuals' articles, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on certain works over others. See the next paragraph for potential exceptions.
[The next paragraph being what is presently called FILMNAV.]

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Support. This wording is much improved. --woodensuperman (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, too deletionist friendly. Writers, directors, and other 'primary creators' of films and shows have a now-allowed place on templates, as they should. Limiting this much more removes all but the name of the show. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  You're mistaken I'm afraid. Under current guidelines, we do not allow writers and directors on navboxes, and quite rightly so. --woodensuperman (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  And this has nothing to do with deletion anyway; this is about categorization and navigation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  woodensuperman, the language "unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question" overrides other current language, and would include screenwriters and directors, no matter what another 'guideline' says. What do you think a primary creator is? Randy Kryn (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

WP:PERFNAV

It reads, in part: 'Avoid categorizing performers by their performances. Examples of "performers" include (but are not limited to) actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc.'

Problems:

• The intent, and the "long-term WP insider who does AfD and CfD and TfD" standard operating procedure is that PERFCAT and PERFNAV are to be interpreted as a matched pair. But they don't match, and wikilawyering disputes about the present wording conflicts sometimes rise to dispute resolution processes. Old hands know this material applies to non-performers, because of the inclusion of a writers example, but it is easily missed, and people wikilawyer that the example only pertains to the sentence in which it is found. This can all easily be fixed.
• PERFCAT problems have most often been about performers, strictly speaking, and most of the wording is thus not written to include crew or production staff, though CfD consistently interprets them as included. Fix it with both a blanket applicability statement, and insertion of examples.
• The examples of "performers" doesn't mention presenters, and it's argued (incorrectly) that they are an exception; so add them explicitly so it matches PERFNAV. Just use the same "includes, but is not limited to ..." list in both guidelines.
• "(including pornographic actors)" is superfluous; examples used later already make it plain that porn isn't somehow exempt (and imagining it was would be crazy anyway).
• "Performers by role or composition" only includes examples of performers, strictly speaking, but is meant to (and is held at CfD to) apply to behind-the-scenes people as well. So just state this explicitly, and include an example or two.
• "Performers by series or performance venue": Ditto.
• "Specific performances by performer": Ditto.
• Our ENGVAR is wandering from paragraph to paragraph.
• "actors/actresses" is redundant. We didn't add "/comediennes", for good reason.

Proposed clarified version:

1. In section lead, replacement wording: Avoid categorising entertainers by their performances or works, or vice versa. This includes, but is not limited to, performers such as actors, comedians, dancers, models, television/radio presenters and other orators, singers, etc.; and production people, such as set crew, writers, composers, directors, producers, etc.; as applicable.
   The "This includes ... etc." sentence of examples can be put into a template so that PERFCAT and PERFNAV are never out-of-synch again.
2. In "Performers by role or composition" subsection: After the "Avoid categories which categorise performers by their portrayal of a role ..." paragraph, add: Also avoid categorising directors, producers, and others on the basis of a shared character, "type" of character or scenario, or specific composition.
   Add some examples from CfD; there must be plenty of cases of "Writers of Sherlock Holmes stories", "Producers of films about transsexuals", "Directors of Christmas movies", "Directors of Hamlet productions", etc.
   Replace "avoid categorizing artists based on producers, film directors or other artists they have worked with", with Avoid categorising based on producers, directors, or other artists with whom the subject has worked [that closes the imagined loophole for production staff].
   Add a production-side example from CfD.
3. In "Performers by series or performance venue" subsection: Retain all current wording, and add after the "This also includes categorization by performance ..." sentence: Also avoid categorising non-performers by venue or series.
   Add some examples of previously deleted categories of this sort. Although we already have one about Star Trek writers, one involving a director or producer would go a long way to dispelling "special exception" thinking and tedious disputes.
   Add or franchise at the end of "any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production".
   Change "Note also that performers ..." to Note also that entertainers ..., since it is not actually performers-specific, and we're defining "entertainers" broadly (see above).
   ENGVAR: Replace "categorization" with categorisation (or change all the s to z spellings, as long as it's consistent on the page).
4. In "Specific performances by performer" subsection: Add to "Avoid categorising characters or specific performances by the performers who have portrayed them or appeared in them" , or by producers, directors, or other staff of works featuring them.
   Provide an example or two from CfD.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Extended discussion

WP:FILMNAV

There's just nothing there.

Problems:

• This does not match actual practice (see my detailed analysis for proof).
• It's not intentional. Because PERFCAT and PERFNAV are interpreted and intended to be interpreted as a matched pair, the logic at FILMNAV (part of PERFNAV) is applicable to PERFCAT.

Proposed addition:

• At the end of the "Performers by series or performance venue" subsection, add:
  It is permissible to categorise an entertainer in a work's category and vice versa if the two are integrally identified with each other in the public mind, and lack of navigation would confuse readers (e.g. Samantha Bee in Category:Full Frontal with Samantha Bee). This may occasionally apply to non-unique close associations; for example, four long-term hosts of The Tonight Show are categorised in Category:The Tonight Show – different age groups of readers have a different strong association in mind – but George Carlin is excluded, despite being Johnny Carson's most frequent stand-in. Such categorisation should not be redundantly done when the category for a work is already a subcategory of the one for the person or vice versa; for example, Category:The Lord of the Rings is a subcategory, through some intermediary ones, of Category:J. R. R. Tolkien, so his article should not be in the work's category nor the work's article in his category).
• Give this a shortcut of WP:WORKCAT, if the confusing WP:FILMNAV shortcut is replaced by WP:WORKNAV (see above).

Note: Category:The Tonight Show is not an unusual case but the actual norm, for many years now, for talk shows and the like; see my larger analysis for proof.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Saw someone at the help desk wondering why after 2 years the links to articles they created and added to a nav templlate were deleted. ....they were pointed to here (film section)....they then had a great question...why does this film rule link to UNDUE WEIGHT 2 times when there is absolutely nothing there about templates. If pop culture template editors are going to link to this....there should be some metion of it there. --Moxy (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Would be grateful for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Templates about year in Spanish football. --woodensuperman 08:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The following parties took part in the prior discussion

@

WP:WAWARD

) 13:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Prior discussion at

• When you have a situation where you have a navbox for a writer and/or a producer, but not a director, this puts
  WP:NAVBOXCREEP. This is why it was decided that only filmographies for primary creators should be included in navboxes. The director-only rule had long-established consensus somewhere (I can't remember where), but only formalised in this guideline much more recently. --woodensuperman (talk
  ) 14:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't recall a director-only consensus in the past. I had seen producer content removed consistently for films, but not screenwriters in the past.--
    WP:WAWARD
    ) 15:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely and odd rule. Going out of our way to impead navigation for certain types of articles iis all messedup....but since over 50 percent of our readers don't even see bottom nav templates most editors dont fight with nav-template editors anymore and just add the deleted links to see also section of the related articles (causes some spam but at least the links are there for our readers).--Moxy (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:WAWARD

) 22:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

To quote myself from the linked discussion (not a formal proposal) "Going to lead to many problems.....why because our guideline (that no one reads first) will be exclusionary in nature" ....There should be no desire for an exclusionary guideline of this nature that is about looks over accessibility.--Moxy (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh. I hadn't noticed you were opposed to the whole change. I guess I need to know whether those who had supported the change had intended for it to apply to screenwriter content as well, which is to my understanding an expansion of prior policy.--

WP:WAWARD

) 02:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the prior discussion and gotten no clarification of consensus I am considering opening a new RFC to refine the prior decision to add
  WP:FILMNAV
  that is now being used to excise what has been considered to be encyclopedic content in the past. Unless convinced otherwise, I will be reopening the discussion with an RFC on the following types of collaborators that might be considered primary creative contributors although they are not directors who were not discussed in the prior discussion. Whereas there has been consensus to remove most cast and crew filmography content from templates, there has been prior general consensus to protect the following types of content that now seems to be considered removable based on the expanded guideline:

1. Screenwriters of original screenplays of films (Including Category:Film writer navigational boxes)
2. Authors of the original works for adapted screenplays (including film content such as can be found at Template:Ernest Hemingway and Template:Alexandre Dumas)
3. Librettists for musical stage productions (Including Category:Musical theatre librettists and Category:Librettist navigational boxes)
4. Episodic writers for television (Including Category:Television writer templates)
5. Dramatist and playwright (Category:Dramatist and playwright navigational boxes)
6. Episodic television producer (Category:Television producer templates) E.g. content like this

I don't think any of these types of content were discussed to any significant extent in the prior discussion and they all seem to be content that is being and will be deleted under the authority of this guideline. Most of the suggestions for further considerations are writers although for episodic television the producer may also be considered a significant creator. Please let me know if an RFC would be appropriate.--

WP:WAWARD

) 13:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Tony, the issue here is the definition of "primary creator", i.e. the "author" of the work in question. If you look at episodic television a writer or producer of an individual episode does not generally have creative control and thus only the "created by" credit should be considered (which is not generally the director or producer, although there will be exceptions). Regarding Bruckheimer, he is an executive producer in the edits you cite above, and executive producers have long been excluded from navboxes. They usually do not have a creative role in a production. Generally films and TV series have multiple executive producers, so if we start having navboxes for executive producers, most modern films and TV series will start off with about 10 navboxes. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation has six other executive producers alongside Bruckheimer, for example. Imagine if they had navboxes too. --woodensuperman (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is removing adaptations from navboxes from the author of the original work, even though they aren't generally involved in modern productions, but as they are not the "author" of the work in question (the adaptation), I guess that point could be made. With regard to librettists, etc, the first example that springs to mind here is the {{Sherman Brothers}} template. I think there is a good case to be made that the Sherman Brothers could be considered the primary creator of film musicals such as Mary Poppins, although some of the other entries seem less clear.

Which leaves us with the screenwriters. I guess it's down to whether you subscribe to auter theory or not. Feel free to revert my edit at {{Ben Hecht}} if you like.

There are two issues here. The first is

WP:UNDUE. Someone who had a relatively minor role in a production could end up having that significance of that role inflated due to the presence of their navbox, while someone who had a large role but maybe does not have a navbox is not present. This is why we need to restrict these navboxes to the "primary creator". --woodensuperman (talk

) 14:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• I just reverted woodensuperman's wholesale destruction of the list of Ben Hecht's screenwriting work, the thing he is most noted for. Of course a writer's screenplays are applicable for templates, and in Hecht's case they are fittingly presented. If there are any other cases like this, please revert. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This deletionist flyby behavior has to be reviewed. Just today I reverted this edit...as clearly there was no attempt to see if the articles removed from the template contained relevant info like at...Stone Cold Crazy#Cover versions, Am I Evil?#Cover versions and Overkill (Motörhead song)#Covers. How can we resolve edits of this nature? Is it odd rules or edit patterns that is the problem here?--Moxy (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:WAWARD

) 16:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Screenwriters seem to already fit the language ("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.") as primary creators. Screenwriters write the thing, thus creating it out of nothing. Specific language concerning 'primary creators' has to include screenwriters, who create the things, primarily? I guess I just can't see the opposite view, which I'm sure is quite as real and quite as certain. So if a wider discussion is needed, I'll put forth Orson Welles as exhibit one. EDIT: And a good exhibit one for both points of view, as his template doesn't include a Screenwriting section, but his primary creator role is assumed just by listing his films. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:WAWARD

) 20:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Reading back on that long-winding discussion I think I see what happened. woodensuperman thinks his proposal, word for word, was adopted, and closed the discussion by saying so, when, by the end of everyone elses discussion, on a quick reading, nobody was even talking about the whole thing. So he starts to get rid of screenwriters and producers, when we didn't agree to that let alone formalize it as language, let alone change the meaning of 'principal creators' (with an 's' included). Principal creators must include screenwriters and directors. I'd toss editors, and at least some of the producers and composers in there as well. But at a minimum the screenwriter, director, and editor principally create a film, television show or episode, etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is what I think we should do: 1.) come up with a list of the common types of templates at issue for this template. 2.) come up with a list of content type that seems to be at issue for each type. 3.) have a discussion about each template with people listing the content types that should be kept. This will be different by template type. E.g., I believe the director is a significant creator for film and a producer is not, while I believe the opposite is true for scripted episodic television. The RFC down below seems to be driving headlong to no consensus. Let's just continue our progress here and hope we can make some sensible decisions collectively. Off the top of my head we need content guidance for and maybe a few more. I think each type of navbox will have different content that is acceptable. We should be broad in construing the original lists for discussion by content type. As an example, it might be the case that for Musical theatre boxes we agree to consider . For each type of navbox like this, we have a discussion where discussants then enumerate the type of content that should be included in the navbox.--

WP:WAWARD

) 16:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of

WP:FILMNAV

There has been dispute among editors regarding the use of the recently created

WP:FILMNAV to justify contented deletion in biographical templates. The original discussion

emphasized "primary creator of the material in question", but the interpretations of this phrase has been problematic. The guideline is currently controversial in terms of editwarring on the interpretation of the difference between the role the producer in a film and the producer in episodic television and the significance of the writing the creative process. In an attempt to clarify the guideline, I am asking interested parties to name the roles that they think should be included in biographical templates. I start as follows:

• films directed, film scripts written, film scripts adapted from original works, works adapted into film scripts, tv series created, original tv series produced, novels/plays/musicals/operas written, relatives, legacy, honoraria/monuments--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 03:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per TonyTheTiger. Writers and directors are surely the principal creators of their artform. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. This is poorly thought through. "relatives, legacy, honoraria/monuments" are open to interpretation/abuse, but also irrelevant to this discussion. This topic is best left for the much better considered RFC by SMcCandlish below. --woodensuperman (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, I am asking you to think it through and propose your list. The confusing RFC below is about coordinating this policy with other policies. The issue here is to determine the intended directive of this policy.--
    WP:WAWARD
    ) 19:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Relatives can be an important section see examples such as {{
      WP:WAWARD
      ) 19:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I am open to debate on legacy, honoraria/monuments but again I point to {{
      WP:WAWARD
      ) 19:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• WP:WAWARD
  ) 20:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:WAWARD
    ) 20:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's an issue with the language. It doesn't say "filmography articles", etc. Rather than continually tagging me, why not suggest how you would you propose to improve it. To be honest, I'm rather fed up with this discussion due to the almighty mess you made of the whole thing. --woodensuperman 09:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
      • WP:WAWARD
        ) 19:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Rather than the original text:

• 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. This avoids over-proliferation of individuals' navboxes on each production's article, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on the contributions of certain individuals over others.

I think we should say something like

• Navboxes for biographical figures should not include links to productions for their roles as cast or crew members. Links to list article presenting filmographies or videographies will enable to reader to navigate to content that presents such performances. Links directly to articles with content showing the individual concerned as a primary creator of the material in question should be the focus of such navboxes of individuals involved in the performing arts. This avoids over-proliferation of individuals' navboxes on each production's article, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on the contributions of certain individuals over others.--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 14:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think its probably too wordy like this, but I don't think it affects the intent too much. However, I note this change. Actually, it should apply to discographies, so that, for example, producer or backing singer discographies, or discographies including compilation appearances, aren't included. ----woodensuperman 15:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

There is still nothing wrong with the present language, "unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question". This language can be incorporated into any change, but should be kept. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• Navboxes for biographical figures involved in the performing arts should not include links to productions for their roles as cast or crew members unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question. Links to list articles presenting filmographies, discographies or videographies will enable to reader to navigate to content that presents such non-creative performances. This avoids over-proliferation of individuals' navboxes on each production's article, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on the contributions of certain individuals over others.--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 03:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @
    WP:WAWARD
    ) 02:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Seems fine. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
      • WP:WAWARD
        ) 13:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I think all these discussions have died. Your proposed change seems unnecessary. --woodensuperman 13:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
          • I thought after all the discussion we had at least agreed that "Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes" could be improved since it could seen as somewhat vague since it could lead to links like
            WP:WAWARD
            ) 15:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of

WP:PERFNAV

There has been dispute among editors regarding the use of the recently created

WP:PERFNAV to justify contented deletion in multimedia templates. The original discussion

on multimedia templates suggested specific roles for deletion without clarifying that for different types of multimedia navboxes some roles differ. E.g., the director of a film is the creative helm of the work, but the director of an episode of a television series or franchise has a much less significant role in the creative focus of that series or franchise. Meanwhile, the producer and creator of a television series have more creative influence over the franchise than a director of any episode. Similarly, the writer of an episode of a television series has a different role than the writer of an entire film script. The composer in musical theater or opera has a different role than the musical helm of a tv franchise. In an attempt to clarify the guideline, I am asking interested parties to name the roles that they think should be included in various types of multimedia templates. I start as follows:

No crew should be included in film series navboxes as they can work on a large number of series, thus causing severe

WP:NAVBOXCREEP on the crew members' articles. Only characters which originated in the film series, etc, should be included, not historical characters, as this is usually a fictional representation. Again, these historical characters' articles would be flooded with navboxes if we allowed this. --woodensuperman (talk

) 11:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you back to opposing writers? What on the list above do you consider to be crew? In case you forgot, we never changed

WP:WAWARD

) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. No crew members belong in navboxes for a film series, etc, and we have had a very long term consensus on this. --woodensuperman (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:WAWARD

) 14:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, along with "directors, teleplay adaptor, original source author (if adapted)". We have a long-standing consensus that we do not have cast and crew in navboxes. --woodensuperman (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

There is also language which includes 'principal creators'. Where do you think the artworks come from? Principal creators include the principal writer and director. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per TonyTheTiger. At a minimum writers and directors are surely the principal creators of their artform. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Scripted episodic television

• creator, producer, original source author (if adapted), sequels, prequels, adaptations, spinoffs, sources, fictional characters, historical characters, seasons, episodes--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 03:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No crew should be included in television series navboxes as they can work on a large number of series, thus causing severe

WP:NAVBOXCREEP on the crew members' articles. Only characters which originated in the series, etc, should be included, not historical characters, as this is usually a fictional representation. Again, these historical characters' articles would be flooded with navboxes if we allowed this. --woodensuperman (talk

) 11:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you back to opposing writers? What on the list above do you consider to be crew? In case you forgot, we never changed

WP:WAWARD

) 19:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. No crew members belong in navboxes for a television series, etc, and we have had a very long term consensus on this. --woodensuperman (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:WAWARD

) 14:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

"creator, producer, original source author (if adapted)". --woodensuperman (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Has there ever been a discussion on whether these episodic television roles are considered crew?--

WP:WAWARD

) 14:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course they are crew. --woodensuperman (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per TonyTheTiger. At a minimum writers and directors are surely the principal creators of their artform. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Reality television

• International versions, season articles, spinoffs, winners and notable contestants.--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 03:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

International versions should ideally have their own navbox between all the different versions, unless there are only a couple of entries. Believe we are also allowing non-celebrity contestants and winners. --woodensuperman (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes there will be a {{

WP:WAWARD

) 19:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per TonyTheTiger. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Operas

• directors, librettists, lyricist, composer, original source author (if adapted), sequels, prequels, adaptations, sources, fictional characters, historical characters--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 03:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Directors seems unlikely, unless the navbox was for a specific production. Authors, composers, etc could prove problematic in the same way film/TV crew is in the case where the individual has written many operas with navboxes. A better approach might be to have a "works" navbox for the individual involved, if appropriate. Again, only characters which originate in the work should be considered. --woodensuperman (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Why do you keep responding as if your rejected interpretation of

WP:WAWARD

) 19:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

You are probably right on the directors issue here.--

WP:WAWARD

) 20:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Why only biography templates with works. There are plenty of notable operas worth creating templates for, e.g., {{

WP:WAWARD

) 20:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per TonyTheTiger. At a minimum writers, composers, directors etc. are surely the principal creators of their artform. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Musical theater

• directors, librettists, lyricist, composer, choreographer, original source author (if adapted), sequels, prequels, adaptations, sources, fictional characters, historical characters--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 03:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Directors and choreographers seems unlikely, unless the navbox was for a specific production. Authors, composers, etc could prove problematic in the same way film/TV crew is in the case where the individual has written many works with navboxes. A better approach might be to have a "works" navbox for the individual involved, if appropriate. Again, only characters which originate in the work should be considered. --woodensuperman (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably correct on the director now that I think about it.--

WP:WAWARD

) 20:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per TonyTheTiger. At a minimum writers, composers, directors etc. are surely the principal creators of their artform. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Plays

• directors, writer or stage adaptor, original source author (if adapted), sequels, prequels, adaptations, sources, fictional characters, historical characters--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 03:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Directors seems unlikely, unless the navbox was for a specific production. Authors, etc could prove problematic in the same way film/TV crew is in the case where the individual has written many works with navboxes. A better approach might be to have a "works" navbox for the individual involved, if appropriate. Again, only characters which originate in the work should be considered. --woodensuperman (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:WAWARD

) 20:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, the director is not a creative influence on the enduring play.--

WP:WAWARD

) 20:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per TonyTheTiger. At a minimum playwrights, composers, directors etc. are surely the principal creators of their artform. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ballets

• directors, composer, choreographer, original source author (if adapted), sequels, prequels, adaptations, sources, fictional characters, historical characters--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 03:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Directors seems unlikely, unless the navbox was for a specific production. Authors, etc could prove problematic in the same way film/TV crew is in the case where the individual has written many works with navboxes. A better approach might be to have a "works" navbox for the individual involved, if appropriate. Again, only characters which originate in the work should be considered. --woodensuperman (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Correct again on the director. I am not sure that there are Ballets that are the focus of navboxes. They are usually adaptations of famous works or not notable enough for their own template.--

WP:WAWARD

) 20:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per TonyTheTiger. At a minimum writers, composers, directors etc. are surely the principal creators of their artform. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Novels

• writer, original source author (if adapted), sequels, prequels, adaptations, sources, fictional characters, historical characters--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 03:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Authors, etc could prove problematic in the same way film/TV crew is in the case where the individual has written many works with navboxes. A better approach might be to have a "works" navbox for the individual involved, if appropriate. Again, only characters which originate in the work should be considered. --woodensuperman (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Novel templates are here to stay.

WP:WAWARD

) 20:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per TonyTheTiger. Writers are surely the principal creators of their artform. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Mythology/folklore

• writer, original source author (if adapted), sequels, prequels, adaptations, translations, sources, fictional characters, mythological characters, historical characters, scholarly study--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 03:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support per TonyTheTiger. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments on all of the above

This really hasn't been thought through. Imagine the mess if we allowed all of Tony's proposals in the navbox for, say {{

Tony seems to be forgetting the long term consensus not to have crew in navboxes. See these:

WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 September 8#Template:Heroes recurring, WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Template:X-Men film series cast and crew, WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Template:Spider-Man film series cast and crew, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 16#Template:James Bond film crew , Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 11#Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe film crew. --woodensuperman (talk

) 08:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:WAWARD

) 14:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's what this entire #Clarification of WP:PERFNAV section is about!!!!! --woodensuperman (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

As I am looking back at this, I think I am having a bit of difficulty in my mind keeping FILMNAV and PERFNAV separate. I think the language needs to be clear that one is for biographical subjects and the other is for multimedia subjects. I.e., the main subject of one is a person and the template shows all his work while the main subject of the other is a work the template shows all related subjects. Then I think we need to have some further isolated discussions about family, and historical figures. I think I have misstated some of my objections given my own confusion. I don't actually think that these crew should all be on the multimedia templates (other than in the title, e.g. {{

WP:WAWARD

) 16:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone like to comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 13#Template:Katy Perry songs and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 13#Template:Taylor Swift songs? --woodensuperman 09:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Music projects have long split theses....perhaps best to bring this up at the projects. Most editors dont believe that merger or deletion talks ecuate to a real consensus....as very few content editors hang around those 2 places.--Moxy (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 14#Template:Selena Gomez songs --woodensuperman 15:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone like to comment at Template talk:Phil Ochs#Tangential entries? Tangential entries I removed with this edit have been restored. --woodensuperman 10:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Can someone find or point out the discussion here which allows red links on templates, especially if the article is sure to be written at some point? Woodensuperman keeps removing the book

Hi Randy, you added this link with zero intention of creating the article. Per

WP:WTAF, redlinks are recommended against. A red link does not aid navigation, the sole purpose of a navbox. Non-notable/deleted entries are always removed from navboxes after deletion. From a navbox we cannot judge whether an entry is notable or not. Why not just create the article, or at least an article stub? That way, there is no issue. --woodensuperman

12:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Photograph (book) stub created. --woodensuperman 12:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks woodensuperman. See, red links on templates work for topics which will certainly have or deserve an article someday. I don't create many pages because I don't like clicking on links (way too many ads and tracking things get attached) and I like to do a page justice more than just a stub. Does anyone have a link to the discussion here though which allows red links for such topics, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:REDNOT is the context and guideline for what you are looking for. --Izno (talk

) 13:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree. I do not put many red links onto templates. The few I have put on have usually been converted into articles, although some have been removed (a recent addition on the {{Diego Rivera}} template was removed, which I've contested on its talk page). There was actually a full discussion on this about a year or two or more ago, which went in favor of adding red links, that's the link I was looking for if someone has it handy without diving into the archives. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:REDNOT are the result of that discussion. --Izno (talk

) 13:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Will read it over at some point. The back-lot of Wikipedia contains way too many shifting buildings, cubbyholes, and crow's nests for any one person (maybe except SMcl) to memorize, and I am an often reluctant but pulled-back-into-Wikipedia-politics type of editor when something comes up. For example, when I pop my head into the deletion pages, where many folks thrive, it always amazes me how so many good pages and templates are lined-up for deletion (on a daily basis!), and so I usually keep away from it because of choice of editing time and a general uneasiness upon seeing the minds of so many deletionists hard at work. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

And just get some ad-blocking and anti-tracking plugins. How can you expect to do much content work if you're afraid to use the web to look for sources? LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I do my work, you do yours. I have ad block and all of that, but if a site takes too long to load I usually bail, so it's not fear but common sense. My observation that there are so many cubbyholes of Wikipedia where policy is formed and re-formed, added, deleted, merged and reworded that maybe only you know what's in there is relevant regarding some of the major changes (in names, etc.) that you want to occur, for you are proficient at pulling out wikilawyering points and procedures for the side of an issue that you want to prevail. I am glad to see your comments on most things, and you seem to be positively active in the deletion cesspools here, where many appropriate pages are nommed but pages and templates that are have little-or-nothing wrong with them are nommed as well by editors who dwell there on a daily basis. If I needed a wikilawyer I'd want your expertise, but when on the opposite side of a question from you I can also see where you sometimes will overuse some guidelines without regard to subtleties in the intent and wording of others. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how encouragement to get tools that will help you has somehow transmogrified into an excuse to label me a wikilawyer, but whatever. The point was just that there's free browser add-ons to make Web browsing safer (and faster), and your initial point appeared to be clear that you avoid online sourcing work out of Web privacy and security concerns. If I misunderstood, mea culpa.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Join the discussion at

Feel free to join the discussion at

Discuss here--Carnby (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Any opinions welcome at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 8#Template:Satellite Award for Best Cast – Motion Picture. --woodensuperman 16:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought we'd reached a consensus on this a while back, but if anyone would like to comment: Template talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#‎Unnecessary addition of information in the navbox. --woodensuperman 10:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? We're kind of at a stalemate over there. --woodensuperman 08:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Further input requested at Template talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#Decision?, where there is a debate whether to order the contestants chronologically, alphabetically by first name, or alphabetically by surname/mononym. --woodensuperman 14:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and please take into consideration, we're discussing drag names here, not true surnames. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)