User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 10

No cast in navboxes?
Where exactly was this rule discussed? ViperSnake151  Talk  16:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a very long-standing consensus, I'll see if I can find it... --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Here you go. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Remember Millennium miniseries?
I'm trying to expand on it, but they are all so attached to the three original films. Some reviews even suggest that the they were just the original cuts (with the exception of the first film which was expanded as a bonus). I made a discussion in WP:TV to get this figured out. Lucia Black (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Is good reads a reliable source in terms of ISBN and publisher? Lucia Black (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I don't think it is for notability, but it's probably okay for that.  Maybe Amazon might be a good source for that too.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * never mind. I noticed that they have an edit button. So most likely unreliable. However barns and noble has first editions and they are not editable. Lucia Black (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Programming templates
Wondering what justification you have for deleting international programming on Template:Seven Network programming, Template:Network Ten programming and Template:Nine Network programming. You stated "Not appropriate to include programming produced by/for other networks" without discussion or citing a reason. The template is designated/titled "Seven Network programming (current and upcoming)", etc, which unlike American networks, contains a mix of locally produced and internationally acquired programming. The template isn't for "Seven produced progams, Nine produced programs, Ten produced programs" - it demonstrates their schedule, much like on similar American articles - both cable and network. There are examples of foreign made programming in American templates I found. Could you please explain further? Thanks, -- Whats new?(talk) 23:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Wikipedia is not a TV guide. These templates do not exist to show every TV programme broadcast by a channel, which is a tangential connection (see WP:NAVBOX).  If a broadcaster created a TV show, then this is something that ties them together, a defining characteristic.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that WP:NOTTVGUIDE, however I'm not sure how the template originally was violates it. I don't see anything specific relating to this issue, however I'm not that invested that I want a lengthy debate about it. I would just say that some of the American templates similar to these Australian ones include foreign titles not produced/created by it (the titles just aren't seperated into domestic/foreign like the templates discussed here were). Feels like it could be US bias, that's the only reason I bring up the issue at all. Thanks for replying. -- Whats new?(talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it could well be a US bias. We don't show HBO or Showtime shows that are broadcast in the UK exclusively on Sky Atlantic in the Sky Atlantic template, etc, etc.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Netflix original programs page
Thank you for all your help with the Netflix original programs page. I've been trying to do as much as I can, but obviously your input its much better and it has concise the website for the better, which I was trying to do but didn't know how to. Also when you have a chance the Originals from Amazon and Hulu need some TLC. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andres balbuena (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andreas - sorry, I missed this! I had just done the same kind of thing at List of original programs distributed by Hulu before I saw your message anyway!  I think the problem with listing them as "former" and "current" is that it implies that a show is not available.  If a show is removed, then the status could be marked as "no longer available", or "removed" or similar to make it more clear.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

AN/I
As you probably expected, the report didn't really result in much. Carry on editing :)  Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi  14:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! :) I was watching the discussion but didn't want to pour oil on the fire.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Broadcaster for Next Class
Hey, I saw that you reverted an edit of mine. I added Netflix because they are the main broadcaster for Next Class. I know Family aired it first but the show is made by Netflix (as can be seen in the credits of the show stating that). Just wanted to let you know. Also, for Degrassi: The Next Generation, we listed Canada's and the U.S. broadcasters. It's the same case for Next Class.Joshie (New Horizons Await You) 17:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because Netflix have added a credit that it is a "Netflix Original" does not mean that they have produced the show. It seems to be purely a distribution deal.  Please note per WP:TVINTL we only categorise shows by their original broadcaster, in this case Family.  Also, see Template:Infobox television it says "Do not add foreign broadcasters here".  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at Talk:List of original programs distributed by Netflix regarding its inclusion there, and the outcome should define how we categorise and deal with the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

AN/I
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. And I wasn't the one who submitted it; I only noticed that it was there and you hadn't been notified yet. I figured you might like to know. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC
pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates -- Moxy (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Revenge of the Pink Panther
Hi Rob, care to share why you reverted my contribution on the films of The Pink Panther? MoxiM (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:OR. Can you provide a source to back this up?  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Well, I watched the movies and in the "Revenge of the Pink Panther" (shot in 1978) Herbert Lom again acts as Clouseau's former chief Dreyfus who dies/disintegrates in the 1976 movie "The Pink Panther strikes again". So, I would hazard that the events must have taken place beforehand. MoxiM (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, though you may be right, this is your own interpretation, and unless this has been discussed by a reliable source, cannot be admitted per WP:OR. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All right, no offence taken., although, it may have been helpful to anyone wanting to watch the series in sequence. Thanks for your time and trouble. MoxiM (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've found a couple of sources discussing the confusion in continuity this causes, but nothing concrete regarding the actual chronology  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello.
Hey there. I have a question for you. So remember how you said we can't list "foreign" Networks in the info box? Well, what if the show is a split production show? Degrassi: TNG was a main Canadian show but also aired simultaneously in the US. So that's understandable for that show. But Degrassi: Next Class is not a Canadian show but a joint production between Netflix from the US and DHX Media (Family)in Canada. I was looking at other shows that possibly listed both Netflix and whatever network it's on in Canada or elsewhere. I found the show Between which is a joint production from a Canadian based company/City and Netflix, just like Degrassi: Next Class is with Netflix and DHX. They list the Canadian network and the US network (Netflix) since it's a split production. On those grounds, wouldn't that work for Degrassi: Next Class as well? So may I please have your opinion on this? Thank you. :)Joshie (New Horizons Await You) 20:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'd go by the instructions at Infobox television, which says to include The original network(s) on which the show has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here. Therefore, if two networks are involved in the production, it would imply that it is okay to add both, as they are not "foreign" broadcasters.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Smells Like Teen Spirit", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — Llywelyn II   11:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

When redirecting templates make sure all articles using that template are updated
You redirected Template:Nebula Award Best Novel 1965–1980 etc. to Template:Nebula Award Best Novel - please make sure all the articles using the templates that now redirect there are updated properly (See: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Nebula Award Best Novel 1965-1980 etc.) --Fixuture (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've fixed the double redirects.  Sorry for overlooking this.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

inre Draft:Pocket Gangsters
Care to assist in expansion and sourcing? Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Navbox Extreme wealth
Hello, my friend. You said it was too general, so, I narrowed the focus from Wealth to Extreme wealth. How about now?

Best,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna - I still think it seems like an unnecessary grouping of articles to me - a navbox for its own sake, but I guess there's nothing really wrong with it. Maybe to name it as a collection of lists, like Lists of people by net worth might give it a bit more focus.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good advice. Ideally, if it could either have its focus on extreme wealth in general, that would be great. Another choice would be to zap the see also group and make it focus on entities, whether individuals, groups of individuals, organizations, etc. Do either of those strike you as okay? Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I like it. EllenCT (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, EllenCT! And I love your talk page "Socialism never...". Bloody fantastic! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's been a week with no objections. I'll move it to the mainspace. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Time is Not Yet Ripe
I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. George Ho (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A thread which may interest you
see here. best wishes. Frietjes (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Brat Pack
seems a bit much to have films in here ... Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Per Brat_Pack (actors), there is no generally accepted list of "Brat Pack" movies.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you stalking me or just glad to see me?
Soon after I edited the Marc Chagall template you came by (having never edited it before) and removed some old links to sister-projects which contained valuable reader information (you seem to relish removing data from readers, I don't know why), which you also did to the Rob F. Kennedy template which I recently edited. I've asked before if you are stalking my page edits, and you said no, but, along with other swoop-ins, I have to say "hmmmm". If not, and I guess it's not wiki-illegal, once again my apologies. Randy Kryn 14:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Randy, what on earth do you mean by "old links to sister-projects which contained valuable reader information", when, as you are well aware, there was an RFC which determined that these should not be in navboxes. See Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 9  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Avoiding the question. The Chagall template has only 14 edits since it was created in 2012, so a fine coincidence if nothing else. And you've never answered if, when that mistake gets reversed, you will help me put back all the sister project links you've removed, edits which I spent a year working on. You've never gotten around to ripping them away from readers of the Winston Churchill template, another fine Brit who has some really good Wikiquotes. Randy Kryn 15:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There you go, quick work on Churchill. Giving ole Winston's readers less of a choice. Will you help put those back when the day comes? Randy Kryn 15:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see you rushing to remove the ones you added against the guideline, so other editors are having to clean up after you, so I'm not sure why you would expect me to add them back in the unlikely event that there is support for including external links in navboxes.  Thanks for the heads up on Winston Churchill.  Although you could have removed those yourself if you knew they were there.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never added a one since that decision. Haven't removed any either, but neither has anyone else but you that I've seen. And since that decision I've run across dozens of templates which include those links that were put up many years before I started. So follow me along the trails if you like, I'll leave breadcrumbs and saucers of milk. Randy Kryn 16:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Civil Rights Memorial
Moved discussion to article talk page. Mitchumch (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
 * Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Tom Sharp things JarrahTree 13:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

TfD
Hi, you seem familiar with the policies regarding templates for discussion. Could you help resolve an issue here (it's the government misconduct one)? Thanks. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutral notice
As a participator in the discussion at Talk:Universal Monsters (2014 film series), you maybe interested in a discussion regarding a similar topic at Talk:Godzilla-Kong cinematic universe.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPACEINITS
That guideline does not say "use the spaced form in every case". Credits are usually listed how they are shown on-screen. We do not add or omit diacritical marks or similar because of WP:COMMONNAME either. It does not mean that's the only name that can be used in every case. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that isn't the case. If on-screen for The Lord of the Rings it read "J.R.R. Tolkien", we'd still show this as "J. R. R. Tolkien" per our MOS.  We don't follow the screen credits for something that is a style issue.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, at The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), the poster renders it without spaces, but we use our own guidelines for rendering initials. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Navbox at Marko Topchii
You wrote: "Hi. Please note that per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, the navbox Classical guitar is not to be transcluded at Marko Topchii as he is not mentioned within the navbox.  Navboxes provide navigation between articles, if they are not mentioned then it does not perform this function.  They are not to be used as a "badge" or portal on loosely related topics.  See Template talk:Aviation lists for a recent RfC on the same subject.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)" The page is mentioned in navbox in the category List_of_classical_guitarists. Moreover, the subject is active representative of the contemporary classical guitar society. So why this article classified as "loosely related" and "vaguely related". The main purpose to place the full navbox is not the "badge", but to symplify navigation to related articles and to separate classical guitar from other guitar instruments. Thank you. (talk)
 * Hi, but this doesn't mean the page is mentioned in the navbox, this means the article is mentioned on a list article that is included in the navbox. That's another degree of separation.  The purpose of a navbox is to navigate between the set of articles in the template, not the ones that are mentioned in other articles.  See also Talk:Michael Laucke where another recent RfC was held on exactly this topic.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And also, User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/Classical and flamenco guitar templates. --Izno (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:TopicTOC-Anarchism
seems unnecessary since we already have Template:Anarchism and Template:Anarchism sidebar? Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, seems a bit of a muddle. I'm not seeing Anarchism at Outline of anarchism for example.  But yes, in principle, it seems redundant.  If only these anarchists would follow the guidelines...  ;)  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ha, yes. the Template:Anarchism sidebar seems to have all the links. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:ABS-CBN News personalities
Isn't this all cast by definition? 98.230.192.179 (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

CCH Pounder
Your reversion of my move without notification was in appropriate. In fact, you should have discussed it with me before reverting. Your edit summary suggest that the move was made without discussion. Absolutely correct. Most moods are made without discussion. Discussion is warranted before the move if there is good reason to believe it might be contentious. Given the vast predominance of CCH Pounder compared to C. C. H. Pounder, I am still at a loss to figure out why it is contentious. I think you should undo your revert and then raise a discussion if you have an argument why you think the rare term is preferable to the common name term.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, onus would be on you to open a WP:RM on the subject. Per our guideline WP:SPACEINITS we use a full stop and a space after every initial (see J. R. R. Tolkien, etc, etc).  Usage without spaces and punctuation is not ubiquitous.  See .  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the entire guideline. Per our guideline WP:SPACEINITS we use a full stop (period) and a space (e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien), unless: 
 * An overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)); examples include CC Sabathia.
 * A google search for C.C.H. Pounder yields that version in the Wikipedia article, and only one other in the first 30. That qualifies as overwhelming majority. My move was consistent with the guieline. I request that you revert your edit, and you can open an RM discussion if you think it deserves more discussion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, I'd suggest you start a WP:RM to see whether there is support to ignore our internal style guidelines and move to a non-standard style. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to share with you the sequence of events from my point of view see can see why I am not happy with how this is being handled. I am an OTRS agent and field a lot of emails from people writing into Wikimedia with questions and requests. A common email is a specific edit request — we never mindlessly act on such a request, but look into the facts and circumstances and determine whether the edit is straightforward in which cases we might simply carry it out; if there are complications, we will provide advice about how to proceed. Here is the sequence of events from my point of view:
 * 1) A reader wrote into Wikimedia requesting that the article title be renamed.
 * 2) I reviewed the relevant guideline which suggested that periods are generally preferred, but the guideline provides a specific exception in the case that an overwhelming majority reliable sources use a different approach.
 * 3) I did a quick Google search to see which option was more prevalent. It wasn't a close call. As I read the guideline, there could be a majority using a nonstandard format and we might still stick with using periods.We require a higher hurdle, which was met. Only one of the first 30 entries, other than the Wikipedia entry, used C.C.H. Pounder. The rest used CCH Pounder.
 * 4) I concluded that this was not a close call, and didn't want to waste the time to create a move request for something that was clear-cut. Therefore, I made the move and informed the person that contacted us.
 * 5) It is clear that you disagree with my assessment because you reverted my move
 * 6) In my opinion, your best response would have been to contacting me and discuss it. I accept that some editors support the reversion and discussion approach. I think that second-best but I get that some editors find it acceptable
 * 7) If you had taken either one of these approaches, that is contacted me before reversion or reverted and contacted me, I would have known about the reversion quickly and could have reached out to the person who wrote to us and let them know there was a complication. I could've been in a position to proactively let them know that there was an internal dispute and we would sort it out
 * 8) However, you did neither. You didn't contact me first nor did you revert and then contact me. You simply reverted without informing me
 * 9) I only learned about your reversion because the person wrote back and wanted to know what was going on
 * 10) This left Wikimedia in an embarrassing position of informing someone that the request has been granted and they find out it is been reverted without any contact
 * 11) I then reached out to you to asked what happened
 * 12) You cited a portion of a guideline excluding the exception to the guideline that applies to this specific case
 * 13) I cited the same guideline and pointed out that it has an exception that applies

I respectfully ask you to self-revert and you can open an RM if you wish. If you refuse to self-revert, I'll do the reversion for you, and you can open an RM to see if the community agrees with your reading of the guideline. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:BRD. You made a bold undiscussed move from a stable title.  I disagreed and reverted it.  It is now for you to start a WP:RM.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BRD says if I made a bold move and you reverted, you should start the discussion. You did not. Do you seriously think that 28 of 29 entries following one convention does not qualify as meeting the guideline?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm not conceding my move was bold. It was undiscussed because I looked at the guideline and it clearly met the guideline. Your original partial quote of the guideline strongly suggests that you misread it. One does not have to start a discussion when one makes an edit conforming to a guideline. If you want to try to make the case, feel free to make the case somewhere. In the meantime, please revert your edit which was contrary to guidelines and not discussed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you digging in on this? You made a simple error. Please fix it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

What's going on?
I'm starting to worry about your possible bias. Why on earth did you remove a relevant template in this edit. You aren't a newbie, you know that edits should have an edit summary.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Something should be done with editors that go out of there way to orphan pages and make it hard for our readers to navigate articles. What  is  not so funny is the few  deletions of this kind really think they are doing good by Wikipedia. Edits  like this that then remove the template all over are a determent and should be stop by the community.  However because its not content related people just dont really care....yes those that write the articles that are being orphaned  and our readers trying to navigate topics care...but thats it. No point in trying argue...some simply dont understand why we are here to begin with...they edit for there own  Wikipediholism..not to help our readers. Abuse of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is the main problem here.-- Moxy (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a longstanding consensus not to have actor filmographies and cast lists or crew lists in navboxes. Ergo, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL the template does not belong on the actor page.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And Moxy, we have had numerous RFCs on WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, yet you still fail to accept the consensus? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Abuse of the guideline is the problem not the guideline itsself.  -- Moxy (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The guideline isn't being abused. The problem is that it isn't being followed.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, please refrain from writing snarky edit summaries. I don't think you'll find that it is me who's in danger of not getting the hint...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to a few of these RfCs.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Which, the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL issues? Just have a look at the talk page and archive at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked through Archives 11, 10, 9, 8 7, 6, 5, 4, and 3, which got me back to 2005. I did not see an RfC supporting your position. It is possible I missed it - I searched for RfC, so if it wasn't an RfC I didn't look closely, and perhaps some RfC was mainly concerned with something else, and I missed a subtle point. Can you point me to the RfC?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For bidirectionality? Well, you could try Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 10 which confirms that it does still enjoy consensus, and also you could have a look at Template talk:Aviation lists  There are many other discussions.  I'm quite bored of having to explain it every time.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * How curious, I was in the process of writing about Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 10, to note that it does not support the removal without even an edit summary. It might be read to support an discussion, but it does not contain any language supporting this specific removal. Did you actually read the summary? It clarifies that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is a recommendation with exceptions. There were 13 support votes and 14 opposed, which on a raw vote count isn't overwhelming. If you look deeper, you see that several support were conditioned on there being exceptions. It explicitly opposed the use of BOT because it requires some editorial judgment to determine whether removal is warranted. Therefore, your removal, which may have been thoughtful, but came across as bot-like because you simply removed it without even a hint as to the rationale.
 * I read the RfC which supported the removal of the aviation template. I agree with the removal, but do not see that as applying to this example.
 * You claimed there are multiple RfCs supporting your edit - I haven't seen one yet. Are there others or are you seriously hanging your hat on an RfC that explicitly noted exceptions?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Who except a bot can keep track of all the places on Wikipedia that 'things' are decided. It's a morass at times, and only those who have time for it play all over the place. On this bidirectional thing, I've maintained that if, within reason, an article is on a list which is included in the template, or can reasonably be assumed to be a page the reader has shown a topic-interest in, it could be templated if it makes sense to many editors. No reason to limit knowledge, or disrespect templates. And it seems, I think, Wikipedia topic projects can give wide-exceptions to the subjects, according to guidelines. On the other hand, in this case, adding actors' and other film professionals roles into templates, I think that's been discussed by enough editors (and not a "major decision" decided somewhere like our ever-popular Aviation lists article, which may be a good discussion nonetheless) may not make sense. There are limits of what fits into bidirecionality, though, and possibly the questions here should be, or have been, fully addressed in the film projects as well. It's nice you're interested in template/navboxes, I think Rob and I may agree that they are the most disrespected really-good knowledge-collection creations on Wikipedia (those navbox cages, for example, which often hold five or less collapsed templates which, when measured in length vs. usefulness, should of course be visible to readers and researchers). Randy Kryn 18:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps best to explain the overall view of the project involved. WikiProject Film claims that they are not fan of lots of navigational temples being  used in the articles they cover. So because of this POV the project does not allow (I should  say recommends) - that NO Actors should be in nav templates or templates of that nature be on  film  pages - (Manual of Style/Film)...this has evolved over time to include  all cast, crew, directors etc.. despite our guideline as see at  WP:ADVICEPAGE. So how does WP:BIDIRECTIONAL come into play here....well what happens is all cast, crew etc.. are removed from the template then the template is  removed for said articles. There is no consideration if the template was usefull on the parent articles and should only be removed on certain articles over removing the links altogether.  So how does this effect our readers see Clint Eastwood...there you will find a dozen or so nav templates to hundreds of unrelated articles but nowhere can you find the movies his been in. The project argues that there is a link on the parent articles and in many cases a  filmography link in the templates, but again this does not take into account accessibility (as many readers have limited data and many have physical restrictions making every click hard). I think it is very odd a project will go out of there way to make navigation harder for the topic they cover.  this has lead to other project voicing concern to no avail e.g Template:Madonna here you will note no link to Evita (1996 film) despite the fact the Madonna project would like the link on the parent article..why because she won "Best Actress" for this role...most would think a link is relevant. All this is basses  of the wrong interpretation of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (abuse as this point in my opinion) and a project POV on not having certain types of article linked in navtemplates. -- Moxy (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaving Evita off of Madonna's templates, close to criminal, someone should be doing hard time for that. An amazing film, she was born to play that part. Seems like if someone wins a Golden Globe or major Oscar for their roles it should be on their template (very few have lots of those, so it wouldn't take up much room on the templates), but that would take one of those discussions. Randy Kryn 19:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There are some larger items of interest although this isn't the place so I'll be brief. Wikipedia sometimes looks like a microcosm of worldwide government issues. I presume this is true of all places but I'm more familiar with the US so I'll note that some things are done very locally and some things are done at the countrywide level and some things are done at a level in between. There are advantages and disadvantages to both so there's a natural tension. Local decisions can better reflect the interest of the local inhabitants, while countrywide decisions are potentially more efficient but can certainly provide more uniformity. In some cases uniformity is a good goal in some cases it is not necessarily as important.

Within Wikipedia, I hope it would be obvious that allowing each individual or even each wiki project to define conflict of interest as they choose is unworkable. We must have a rule that applies uniformly to all. For other matters, it makes a lot of sense to allow wiki projects to make some decisions. The ideal list of parameters in an INFOBOX is a good example of something that can be determined at the wiki project level. Whether or not a sports team INFOBOX should have a field for head coaches assistant coaches associate head coaches and director of basketball operations is a discussion that a wiki project can resolve but a Wikipedia wide RFC would struggle with, due to subject matter (lack of) knowledge. I deliberately chose INFOBOX is because they have been the subject of some controversy. I think it makes sense for a wiki project to debate among themselves the best parameters for INFOBOX is applicable to that wiki project, but I disagree with the wiki projects that think they have the right to decide that info boxes are either mandated or precluded. Sensibly, the community agreed.

It is natural that a wiki project will take on subjects of interest and might forget that the subject matter is not narrowly theirs to decide. A wiki project has the subject matter knowledge to discuss the types of templates that might be warranted in a wiki project, but if they then decide they aren't big fans of navigational templates, they are intruding into a Wikipedia wide responsibility. They might well have useful input into how navigational templates ought to be used project wide, but navigational templates are used throughout the project and no particular wiki project should be declaring that they are exempt from the overall rules.

I am sympathetic to the possibility that a navigational template can be overused. However, abuse of a particular navigational template is not licensed to declare that certain things cannot be done because they are in violation of some desire of some editors. I'm sympathetic to the goals of the bidirectional guideline but it's a crude tool that must be evaluated to determine whether it is keeping out nonsense or keeping out useful navigational tools.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Seriously TLDR. However, no case to be made that there should be an exception to add The Shield to C. C. H. Pounder.  If editors have an issue with WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, they should take it up at the guideline talk page.  Again.  :(  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They may also be interested in Template talk:Firefly. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)