Template talk:Infobox awards list/Archive 1

Total number of nominations includes those won
Why was it determined in this template that the total number of nominations does not include the wins, when most wins are from nominations (with the exception of a few film industry awards that just announce winners, & in that case there are no nominations to be added to the totals)? Also, when there is a record number of nominations for a person or title, it would not be reflected in the nominations totals because of this. This was brought up at Template talk:Infobox musician awards but not addressed. Lapadite (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wins are included as nominations. The note in the Totals subheader states: For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination. - Brojam (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I referred to that above. It says it's 'presumed', but the question is why the total number of nominations shown in the list article is not actually reflected in the infobox nominations totals. Readers looking at an infobox showing, say, "7 nominations, 40 wins" would see it as nonsensical as there can't be 40 wins from 7 nominations. And again, in the example of someone who has a notable record number of nominations for something, it would not be reflected in these totals. Any quirk with a specific award can be and is normally mentioned in a note; in fact that general note in the infobox alludes to this. This infobox totals format for the majority does not make sense and does not service the reader. Is there a talk discussion that led to an agreement on this that I can refer to? Lapadite (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If I saw "40 wins, 7 nominations" that would mean 7 times they didn't win. A person is generally nominated for something before winning it. If I saw someone with "2 wins, 2 nominations" I wouldn't expect that total to be from only 2 awards; I would expect there to be four awards total.Primefac (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A nominations totals is literally the total number of nominations the subject has received regardless of how many were won. And the wins totals is just the total number of wins. Not relative to x or y. 5 Grammy nominations received and 2 won makes an artist a 5x Grammy nominee and 2x winner - not a 3x nominee (the amount not won) according to your view of the totals. This confuses readers forcing them to go through the table/list to confirm what it may be referring to, which defeats the purpose of the simplicity of an infobox. If there's no prior discussion and consensus among editors in favor of that view, there's no basis to force articles to apply it. Lapadite (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I asked the question here ( now transcluded below ) and the general agreement (even though it was a small discussion) was that nominations should not include wins. This template was created with a note stating how the wins/noms should be listed. At this point it is you that must find a consensus pointing in the other direction. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok so now there's a discussion that mentions this to refer to. This has been questioned too before on the talk pages of this template and/or the Infobox musician awards template (e.g, ) but no discussion came of it. Now, the discussion you just linked has two editors that responded: one said "I'm not sure what the correct way to go is", the other said "Wins are their own parameter", and neither of which answers the question. If this is the only discussion that mentions this issue, then there clearly has been no "agreement" or consensus for your preference, so I don't know why you're acting is if there is. Please seek a community consensus/RfC for it before forcing articles to apply your method. I added my view to that discussion. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but even if we do go with the argument that there is no current consensus, then that means that we need to get a consensus to change it from what it is currently. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A nomination is not a loss. That simply doesn't fit the definition of the word.  I tend to read it as "X wins from Y nominations", and would expect Y to be the total nominations, including wins, losses and presumed nominations (when the award is announced without a prior nomination round).  I also feel that the footnote might benefit from a copy edit. If this is bound for an RfC, maybe that could be handled at the same time. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Automatically generated efn & References section
Is a way to add a different efn or have "References" appear elsewhere instead of the infobox? It seems that editors should be able to change the wording or position. Several other related infoboxes don't have set efns & refs (Infobox artist discography, Infobox musical artist, Infobox concert). Thanks, —Ojorojo (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the note about wins/nominations is more of a note than a reference, and I think the name could be changed rather than removing it; there's no reason to have the note all the way down at the bottom of what could be a very big page (which also might not have a notelist). Primefac (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that anything be removed, rather that editors should be able to override the auto-generated wording and positioning on a case by case basis. Efns are typically found at the end of the article along with references, etc. Wherever they appear throughout an article, they are accessed by clicking on the their link, so readers do not have to scroll down long articles. If the editor does not include a notelist, the current wording and positioning would remain as the default. Also, as mentions, "notes" are not typically listed  as "References", since they are more explanatory than actual sources for the text. The current efn is five sentences (over 70 words), which some editors may feel is unnecessarily long. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As an interim measure, changed the "References" header to "Note": it's used for one explanatory footnote. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

600 pages which use a handmade version of this
There are about 600 pages which use a handmade version of this template. I don't know if these are pre-template or what. I'm trying to clean these up in support of MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do, but it's definitely just above my AWB skills, so I'm intending to request a bot for it. Is there anything special that a bot creator would need to care about? I notice for example the requirement that everything in this template needs to have its own article, but I would suspect this template does not have all such cases. Izno (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just from a pre-pseudocode standpoint, my thought (as a bot op) would be to first convert only the pages that had the named awards, change the template so that the non-named awards need to be bluelinked (likely using an #ifexist), and then convert all of those pages. It would allow for easier conversion and make it so that we could potentially add tracking cats for the redlinked awards. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey @Izno, sounds good, have you requested a bot for that? Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've posted a request now. Izno (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Indagate (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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