User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 11

JT McNamara
Normally, yes, but in his case the name is - so far as I can see - always stylised without the full stops. So, it is an exception as accepted at MOS:INITIALS: "An initial is followed by a full stop (period) and a space ... unless...[a]n overwhelming majority of reliable sources do otherwise for that person." That is why I moved the article in the way I did. Happy to discuss on the article talk page if you wish to pursue this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

High schools and notability
Hi! I'd like to address this edit. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. The WP:COMMONOUTCOMES is that a senior high school/equivalent of a senior high school survives AFD by default. That means generally any senior high school would be de facto notable.
 * 2. Knowing WP:COMMONOUTCOMES it's logical to say that these should be redlinks.


 * Hi, despite that, see WP:REDNOT and WP:EXISTING regarding redlinks in navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:REDNOT says "Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive" - If you think that they are "excessive" then I could write a certain number of articles so that under 50% of the section's links are redlinks. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

A few other things:
 * Regarding the use of flags WP:MOSFLAG says:
 * "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams." (international schools do represent countries)
 * In regards to icons in general "They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation." - The idea behind the flags is so the readers can quickly locate a school belonging to a particular country without having to read the text closely. It's why flags have survived in "victim lists" (of plane crashes, terrorist attacks, etc) - because it's more readable with them.
 * As for the purpose of navboxes I do not agree that the navboxes should be linking "only" to Enwiki articles. If a subject has an article on another language Wiki, we ought to link link to it in the navbox to encourage its creation on Enwiki (in a way we're saying "this Wikipedia has an article on this topic but it's not on ENwiki. Somebody create it, please!"). Even though the text says "...facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia" it should not be limited to ENwiki articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * With regard to WP:MOSFLAG, you seem to have cherrypicked a bit there. The vast majority of the rest of the guideline would be against the use of flags in this manner:  The fact that flags are not always familiar to people, they cause confusing clutter, they bring attention to some more than others, etc, etc, etc.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as the international links go, I'm afraid you're incorrect and there is plenty of precedent for this. These are to all intents and purposes external links in the terms of a navbox.  Navboxes are for navigation, not linkfarms (it's bad enough to allow redlinks in there).  Linking away from en.wikipedia does not aid navigation in any way.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not exactly the same argument although the principal is the same, but this RFC is an interesting read showing consensus that navboxes exist for internal navigation within the English Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, are you aware of the ill template? Not that I'm advocating its use here, but for elsewhere, as the interwiki link automatically disappears when the target is no longer red.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As for ILL, thanks for sharing that. I've used the FRwiki equivalent of ILL on navigation templates and article space on FRwiki (many topics related to FRwiki) but I didn't know the syntax for the Enwiki version.
 * It is true that many/most uses of flags are discouraged/disallowed by MOSFLAG. I do think that the example of victim lists is relevant because national status/identity is an inherent element. There is a balance: as per MOSFLAG there can't be too many flags and that may be a reason to revisit/revise use of flags in templates for international schools.
 * As for the RFC I understand why most cross-project links may go against the general purpose of linking within ENwiki. I still think ILL could be useful as a "temporary" measure until somebody starts the equivalent ENwiki articles: as some people on the RFC say it's true that on many non-English wikis articles are undeveloped/poorly-sourced, but from my experience often the articles on which the language is relevant to the country (say French for a subject related to France) often the sourcing is better and/or is useful to someone who wants to write an ENwiki article, but that's not always true...
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than use a navbox for this purpose, don't you think a list article would be more appropriate? Or a subsection of the article?  As it stands 7th arrondissement of Paris contains more information regarding the schools than 7th arrondissement of Paris, which should clearly never be the case!  If the article was fleshed out with the information, it would be wholly appropriate to use the ill there, and leave the navigation template to do its job!  For some of the other templates, International schools in the UK for example, per WP:NAVBOX, the subject of a navbox should have its own article anyway, so the information should be on List of international schools in the UK or similar.  This would also solve the notability issue, as these lists could be sourced.  The redlinks on a navbox could be made up names for all anyone knows!  ;)  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards notability it's a good idea to make lists, as some international schools do not cover senior high school levels (the Japanese nihonjin gakko international schools, with the exception of Shanghai's, only go up to grade 9, and while there are many academic articles on Japanese schools not all of them are covered by that), and/or had closed a long time ago and therefore sourcing that they existed and/or had senior high school grades may be difficult to come by.
 * I certainly need to duplicate the high school info and put it in the Paris 7e articles, etc.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:CAT#T
Sorry about the categories; I was unaware of that rule. Thanks for cleaning up my inadvertent mess. :) Trivialist (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, no problem! I had to have it pointed out to me too!  There's a lot of navboxes categorised like this, so I know where you got the idea from...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Cast and crew in navboxes
Hi, I wanted to ask you about these, as you're kind of the expert in this field! I noticed you did some housekeeping on Template:Big Brother UK housemates and Template:Big Brother UK, removing the presenters and such but left in the notable housemates and winners (I hope you don't mind that I restored three winners who only have list entries to make it a "complete list"). So if I were to do similar to other templates, for example Template:Strictly Come Dancing, Template:Dancing on Ice or Template:The X Factor (UK), obviously the presenters, judges and hosts would be removed, and I would assume that non-celebrity winners (The X Factor) would remain, but how should I deal with celebrity winners or the professional contestants who appear in the series? Also, would templates like Template:This Morning or Template:Loose Women be deleted? I'd be happy to see 15 of these be deleted! (Also shouldn't the long-standing consensus be mentioned at WP:NAVBOX so it's easier to enforce?) anemone  projectors  11:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your message. With regard to the Big Brother winners, we shouldn't be duplicating links in navboxes and we should only be linking to "notable" entries, i.e. ones with articles, so the links to the list entries shouldn't really be there.  I've nominated a couple of templates for deletion (see Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 11 and Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 11) - I'm considering these as "test cases" really regarding celebrity contestants and winners.  To my mind the same principle applies to presenters and celebrity participants as to cast and crew in navboxes, which has had a longstanding consensus.  There's a bit of a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates regarding this established consensus which may be of interest.  Also, recent deletions of categories may interest you Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 26, Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 18 and similar.  To my mind, the principle of WP:PERFCAT should be applied equally to navboxes.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just realised you actually participated in some of those discussions! --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For something like Loose Women, I think, yes, this should be deleted. This is just cast and crew at best.  Question Time has just been deleted.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I'm a bit on the fence about celebrity winners. Personally I'd like to see them go from navboxes, but I'm not sure where we are with consensus on that one!  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I understand why you removed those three winners, it's just that it doesn't look quite right with three winners missing. Yeah I thought the TFDs were probably "test cases", so I'll certainly wait until they close before I start TFDing others with you! Thanks for pointing me to the discussion, I'll try to read through it! I'm happy to remove presenters and judges and the like from several navboxes in the meantime, thought it means then going through potentially a lot of pages to remove templates, or leave templates on pages that aren't bidirectional! By the way I found and joined the WikiProject you set up for navigational templates but sadly there is nobody else. I wondered I should set up a template to tag all talk pages of nav templates and then set up article alerts so it's easy to see when something is being discussed, but I assume there are going to be thousands of templates... anemone  projectors  12:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, I'd completely forgotten I tried to set up a navbox project! I don't think I could get any interest from others at the time, so it never got off the ground.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I joined anyway even if nothing happens there! I just thought I'd give you a little nudge to say that when you remove cast and crew from a navbox, you should remove the navbox from their page too :-) I'm going to help where I've seen it happen anyway. anemone  projectors  19:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You do seem to have been attacking the list I made myself for templates to look at at some point. Personally I think for stuff like Template:Strictly Come Dancing Series 13, I would have gone for TFD rather than redirection, as then you don't have to do the work removing the template - a friendly bot will do it for you :-) And deletion is probably better anyway as the template it redirects to is not the same as it does not include any of the same links apart from mabye two. anemone  projectors  19:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Guy, Sharyn & Clint and The X Factor (NZ)
Hi - regarding this edit to Guy, Sharyn & Clint: the infobox has a link to The Xtra Factor (NZ), which redirects to Guy, Sharyn & Clint#The Xtra Factor. Does this warrant inclusion of the navbox The X Factor (NZ)? Ollieinc ( talk ) 10:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I missed that. However, as we have consensus not to link to cast and crew in a navbox, we should probably remove the link from the navbox as it is just a redirect.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a redirect to a section about the TV show though, rather than just a general redirect. So should it be included? Ollieinc  ( talk ) 01:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it could be left as a redirect with possibilities, but I don't think it's necessary, as it will probably be dealt with through normal linking. Template shouldn't be transcluded at target though...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Succession boxes
How do you feel about succession boxes that serve the same purpose as a navbox, e.g. the one in Coleen Nolan? I think they should be removed for the same reason. By the way I'm building up a list of navboxes I want nominated for deletion, I'm going to be really brutal :-) anemone  projectors  13:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're right - the reasons are the same - it clutters up an article, and it puts WP:UNDUE weight on a certain aspect of a career. They also seem to be duplicating a function - if we are allowing celebrity winners in reality series navboxes that is...  Jack Dee has a winner's succession box and a navbox showing the same information...
 * Haha! I've had a go at a couple more today, but I keep losing my place with the removal of them.  As it seems that we still have clear consensus for not including cast, crew, presenters, etc, etc, in navboxes, it should probably be worth codifying it somewhere, as it has never been put anywhere before.  Not sure where would be the best place for it though...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered the point of a succession box that duplicates a navbox just below it, and have removed them in the past. I see you have nominated a few templates that were on my target list. I'm not sure how new guidelines are written, I suppose the place to discuss it is Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. anemone  projectors  13:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've put something at WT:CLT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you get a chance to look at my proposal? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did but didn't think I needed to comment yet. But now there are more replies to read, so I may comment.  anemone  projectors  08:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
I just closed this discussion. I will let you do the actual merging. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Big Brother templates
Hi I saw one of your edits on Template:Big Brother in the United States and Template:Big Brother Australia where you removed the link to Big Brother (franchise). I'm just curious as to why the link to the main page about the entire franchise was removed because that is a relevant link to the localized editions. Your edit summary of "dealt with an international template. removing repeated link" is vary vague. Was there a discussion about not putting a link in a navbox to the article about shows with localized versions?  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  08:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, If you add the link to each individual navbox, then all of those navboxes should then be included at the main franchise page, which is impractical, as that page would then be swamped by navboxes. Better to leave the navigation between franchises to the international template.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Flags in infoboxes of international schools
If you're interested I started a discussion about flags specifically in international school infoboxes at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons - There are still lots of other international school templates with flags so it may be good for the community to decide what happens. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

No time to argue
Take it to a discussion and I'll discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you take a look?
Can you take a look what's happening here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Woods&action=history Thnx! --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Hello R. I hope that you are well. I wanted to let you know that you didn't sign this post at CFD. Sinebot didn't pick up the slack so I figured you would like to fix this. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - how remiss of me! ;)  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Simplified navboxes
I would like to hear more on your ideas to simplify the navboxes, and am proposing to open a discussion at WT:ESC so that more project members can join in the discussion. Navboxes are a thing that crops up periodically every 2-years, and nothing seems to be done about them. Prior to myself throwing in the weight back in 2012, all of these navboxes were a mess, and by that I mean I had to mass-nominate for deletion over 250 of the buggers, because WikiProject Eurovision created navboxes for [Artists] in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest; [Countries] in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest; [Songs] in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, and so on. The all got megred into a one-for-all design (the current design you have seen). If there are ways to make them even more appealing and easy to use (if that is the right choice of words) then your opinion and suggestions would be gratefully valued.  Wes Mouse  T@lk  13:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And doing so would also enable for a more painless mass-nomination process once again should a new design be welcoming, and may even assist with the current nominations to go ahead with deletion.  Wes Mouse  T@lk  13:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to talk to me here. The problem I see, especially with the smaller navboxes, is that with the the collapsible group navboxes there are a lot additional clicks you have to make, only to find that there is no article to navigate at the end of it! Take Latvia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest for example. Out of the artists and songs, there is only one with an article. But you have to make a number of clicks in order to find that out. A more linear approach would allow you to see all the data at once, and which links have articles. Incidentally, we are not supposed to have unlinked text in navboxes, or excessive redlinks, as navboxes are for navigation, not information (see WP:NOTRED and WP:EXISTING). I guess that's why they're called NAVboxes and not INFOboxes! The other problem is that in this format, it is very difficult to make the connection between artist, their song, and the year they participated. The linear approach keeps all of this information together. I had a bit of a trial go at, also replacing the unlinked text with redlinks, and I think that this works better. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The linear approach will look very "botched job" on countries like United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest which is about to select their 61st entry. For countries with less then a dozen, yes I can see the linear style working. But the countries that have been in a long time it would not work, but only make it more of a hindrance. I've thrashed about this debate every time it raises its ugly head (and boy oh boy do I end up with a migraine by the end of it all). I've even pushed several times that WikiProject Eurovision is in dire need of being grabbed by the balls and shaken up dramatically to the extent of a major impacting reform. But no prizes for guessing what outcome I receive whenever I mention that idea to the rest of the project. It gets slammed down, I get called every unprintable name under the sun, and I end up leaving Wikipedia for a month or 2.


 * Members of the project are so lacksey-daisy and incompetent when it comes to operational standards within the project. And it boils my blood to the core. We've not long since had what could have easily turned into a bloodshed war over the inclusion/removal of English translation columns from the contest pages alone. And if it were not for me to have pointed out WP:SIZE, WP:ACCESS, and also get the lead coordinator from WP:GOCE involved, then there could have been mass-blocks on the horizon. And this all boils down to the fact that project members fail to grasp the concept of Wikipedia and the fact we are to be seen as providing useful content, but not carrying a readers hand throughout their viewing of an article. A lot of changes are required on the project, starting with the project itself, and then looking at re-categorisation (which is also in a state of mess), and of course navboxes which as you have seen are in dire need of some TLC.
 * Any support (and I am not meaning this in a canvassing way) by any support to show the project that it is in real need of a shake-up or any suggestions, would be truly grateful.  Wes Mouse  T@lk  14:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any way of doing it without making some compromise (or botching it!) but I think a reader would prefer to navigate through the United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest navbox by seeing which song Rikki sung and in what year (for example)... I get your frustration though - there are some very good projects out there that are really on top of the guidelines, but others, not so much...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've always pointed out that we should be looking towards Project Olympics for inspiration on how a project should be operating. After all, Eurovision has been nicknamed the "Olympics of the Music World", so what better project to be gaining inspiration from. I'm not sure if Wikipedia policy allows myself to "go it alone" and just reform the project so that it does follow all of the policies, guidelines etc, and attempt to bring WP:ESC in-line with all of the other fantastic project out there.  Wes Mouse  T@lk  15:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Vampire Diaries
Hello, recently you redirected the template of the episodes of The Vampire Diaries since the episodes were added to the main template of the series. Problem is that now, many articles (such as this one) that included the specific template, also had the main one. As a result, now all those articles have two same templates at the end of the article. Removing it manually from so many articles is not really an option so, if you please know how to do it with a bot, it would be nice. Thank you. TeamGale (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

A thank you for the housekeeping
Hey, Robsinden. I just wanted to say thank you for undertaking the tedious task of renaming the SYTYCD articles. We had a discussion a few years back about whether to apply the scheme you adopted, and I admit that, at that time, I argued against it, per WP:PRECISE. However, since then, Naming conventions (television) has become pretty codified in requiring the "tv series" affix in cases of distinction between multiple shows of the same franchise/format. As such, I've been meaning to make those changes myself for a while, but you've now saved me the trouble--so, cheers!  S n o w  let's rap 07:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hello71 3RR block review. Thank you. ⁓ Hello  71  20:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

ASOIAF template
Good luck getting that one to stick without discussion. I've had it reverted before. --Izno (talk)
 * Ha, oh yeah. See Template talk:A Song of Ice and Fire.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorkin
Good point on the Aaron Sorkin template, he didn't write all of the episodes and I should have thought of that. Looks like he wrote a new film coming out next year, around here I learn something new every minute. Randy Kryn 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Foreign language group for films and 'Divines'
Hey there, I created a new topic on the talk page of 'List of original programs distributed by Netflix' about this changes from you, were I explained in more detail why personally wouldn't make them. At least one of your changes was always controversial, so it was time anyway to discuss it again anyway. take part if you want and have a nice day. :) Abyss Taucher (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion re three deleted templates
Can you please help at this discussion? You nominated templates for deletion, and they were deleted, but they are still transcluded. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesey95 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
Per this edit, you are edit warring (note that edit warring does not have to involve 3RR). If you make an edit, and someone reverts it, you should immediately take the discussion to the appropriate talk page rather than reverting to your preferred version. Regarding your comment, SELFREF suggests not referencing Wikipedia in a non-neutral manner. A link to a WikiProject, without any commentary, is as neutral as you can get, especially in regard to an obviously-related topic. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 09:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Please note that in the lede to WP:SELFREF it states self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should be avoided  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You forgot the "Typically" at the beginning of your quote, which entirely changes the meaning of the quote. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 09:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. We shouldn't do it.  There's no justification for an exception here.  We should not be directing readers away from mainspace into an editing/wikiproject area.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In agreement with Rob here. --Izno (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've removed duplicate links and a category WP:EGG too - details can be found at Template talk:Science fiction. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Faust
No one is more liberal with the knife to my templates than you. I was hoping for some impartial eyes to take a closer look at Template:Faust. I am having trouble with attempted edits to the template today and have tried to correct them, but I need a second opinion. Basically, there are 1) things derived from Faust; 2) works involving selling souls, and 3) works about deals with the devil.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's been a while! :) I'm a bit wary of some of these navboxes, sometimes even the smallest of mentions or connections can get an article included when the connection is only tangential.  See this for example.  In the Faust navbox, I think there are some entries that fall under this category - The Transformers: The Movie, Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (play), etc, are all examples of this.  There are more, but I haven't been through every one.  Being "Faustian" isn't enough... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am troubled by recent additions to the template. Of course, I know you tend to remove content that I might not. I am not so sure about that diff you show above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Divines
Divines is a "Netflix Original" film. Netflix picks up lots of films at film festivals and applies that label, which is on the films in that template. It's only not on Netflix France because of French windowing laws. It's no less an original the Beasts or Jadotville.-- occono (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See Talk:List of original programs distributed by Netflix and Talk:List of original programs distributed by Netflix. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That reasoning there doesn't make any sense. Netflix is only "the distributor" for lots of films and series on that list. House of Cards isn't an original by this rationale, it's a Sony show and they don't have global rights to it.-- occono (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right in that sense. House of Cards is the exception to that rule. But is because when they produced the show, they never had international plans, so their international rights were sold to various markets. But it still is a Netflix Original just for the simple fact that they produced the show. Also Sony films the show, but that doesn't mean is theirs, same thing with Marco Polo - Weistein company filmed it, same as Daredevil - ABC and so on. Andres balbuena (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Miss Julie
It has come to my attention that you WP:CSDed Template:Miss Julie in July 2015 after this series of edits, , , , , , and. I have had the template userfied at User:TonyTheTiger/Miss Julie and have updated it for page moves and a new related article. Template:August Strindberg no longer contains adaptations and this content should be available via navbox. Given the number of adaptations of this work, I believe a dedicated template is the proper presentation. You, I and are the most involved in the ongoing curation of this type of content. I am interested in moving this content back to template space as a specialized template. Please comment on this potential action.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see any justification for removing the adaptations from August Strindberg. I think restoring them to that navbox is the best course of action, as this allows for adaptations of his other works.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be correct, but I still don't understand the desire for the whole template on the Miss Julie adaptations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please comment on why we want to have the large general template on all adapations rather than a Miss Julie specific one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologize for jumping in here, as a Rob page-stalker. I think having the whole template on each adaptation page gives the reader the context of the principal author's career, a feel for his literary and cultural impact. Your template is also fine, and I see no problem with having both templates on each page. One, specific to Miss Julie, and then the overview template for those who wish to explore the subject further. Randy Kryn 03:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no need for both. If all the links on Miss Julie are included on August Strindberg then Miss Julie would be redundant per WP:CSD.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , there is certainly no need to have both on each page. My claim is that the larger general Strindberg template provides a lot less useful extraneous clutter at the adaptations. Furthermore, by lumping the operas, films and plays together it is less useful for the reader interested in the adaptations. The adaptations should have the adaptations template and the rest of the articles (largely primary subjects of Strindberg) should have the general template., I am not arguing for both on any page other than Strindberg. I am saying that the general Strindberg template is less useful on the adaptation pages than a template designed to present adaptation content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a solution, since only the adaptation pages are included. Nothing at all wrong with the Miss Julie template, and probably both should be on the main 'Miss Julie' page as well as Strindberg's. Randy Kryn 20:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * IIRC, that was the situation before Robsinden swapped the bigger template in on all the adaptation pages and CSDed the template. So I am here asking for further explanation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , apparently you are watching your talk page closely. Can you comment on this issue. It is better to have a discussion than a WP:EDITWAR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what further comment I need to make. There's no need for multiple navboxes when one suffices.  Removing the Miss Julie links from August Strindberg seems unnecessary for a relatively small navbox.  Including all the Miss Julie adaptations at August Strindberg is without a doubt the best course of action, as this allows for adaptations of his other works to be included too.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said I was interested in removing the links from August Strindberg. My question is whether it is better to have the entire Strindberg topic on an adaptation of his work by someone else. I think on those pages an adaptations template is preferable. That is what I am seeking comment on. I.E., the question is whether the Miss Julie only template is better on a Miss Julie adaptation page than the entire Strindberg template as it currently exists.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We should definitely not be taking this two-tier approach. This is why Miss Julie was deleted in the first place, as it is redundant.  We had the same issue with Ernest Hemingway a while back if you recall...  --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Interwikis links
As my harshest template critic, I am giving you a first crack at assessing a new feature I am tinkering with. See interlanguage wikilink use at The Twelve Chairs, The Sea-Wolf and White Fang. , feel free to chime in on this and any relevant policy or forums.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony, there should be no interwiki links in navboxes, as, per WP:NAVBOX, they exist to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia. We should not be directing readers away from English Wikipedia mainspace anyway, but these are external links, which are not permitted in navboxes.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the 2015 change by to the WP:CLN guideline in this regard. Where was this consensus for this change developed or was this just his opinion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC) and
 * there is consensus that navigation boxes in articles on the English Wikipedia site are for navigating between articles on the English Wikipedia site. Rob may be interested in reviewing [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Interlanguage_link&namespace=10&limit=500&hidelinks=1 these templates]. Frietjes (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * and, O.K. where is this consensus. Again, I see the 2015 change by , but I don't see the consensus. Where was the consensus? Has there ever been a discussion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They're external links. These have not been allowed for a lot longer than 2015.  I think Moxy was probably just clearing up something that was a little ambiguous.  Directing readers away from this site does not aid internal navigation, the sole purpose of a navbox.   --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you define as "internal". Other Wikipedia's can be described as 'internal' to the overall project, and the very tiny red-link seem both harmless and informative for the deep-researcher. And, of course, the slight addition of a few sister-project links such as Wikiquotes, Wikisource, commons, etc. can be described as common sense (i.e. using your noggin) and allow readers to find as much information on a subject in the Wikipedia universe as they can. Randy Kryn 14:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Internal = pages on this website, i.e. the English language Wikipedia. And will you please stop going on again and again about the effing sister projects, this was decided by RFC long ago.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, that RFC pretty much covers the issue of the interlanguage links too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, the language, I'm a very sensitive person. The 'effing sister projects', as you now call them (and that may explain a lot), are extremely tied-in to Wikipedia, its editors, and our overall mission. Those links, still useful and without reader-complaint on many templates, have never been removed by anyone as far as I know except for you. Randy Kryn 14:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:DROPTHESTICK. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * For any casual readers or stalkers, Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 9 is the RFC that Randy continually refuses to accept the outcome of. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha! Thanks ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There was no doubt a reasonable consensus against sister projects. I think that was a discussion about templates that formerly looked like this. The current issue is regarding linking to encyclopedias in other languages. The discussion is similar, but I think different enough to warrant a discussion. I will open an WP:RFC about interlanguage links to other encyclopedias, which I think is a different consideration than links to other projects unless there is objection to a second RFC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Tony - no need - it's covered in that discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, you may be right, but this is an "external/internal" link to the exact content that the redlink would have if you press the translate button, which will appear on most of the interlanguage links to other wiki encyclopedias. No other sister project is an encyclopedia with the exact content of the desired article that needs to be translated. Thus, other language wikipedias are a different consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The question you have to ask is, does it aid navigation of the English Wikipedia? If it doesn't, it doesn't belong in a navbox.  Linking to other language Wikipedias does not fulfill this task.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I look more closely at the prior June/July 2015 RFC, that discussion was about Wikipedia links versus the sister project links and supports the guideline that existed before the March 2015 change. The term sister project does not include foreign language wikipedias. The March 2015 had no discussion anywhere that I can see. There has been no consensus for that change. I am going to revert that change and open an RFC on whether there is consensus to treat foreign language wikipedias like sister projects.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Read the comments by which cover the inter language links.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * One discussant may have gone a bit offtopic. That is not what the RFC was about. The RFC was about sister projects.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * and, RFC is open at Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry got no notification about this talk till today. Just so the wrong point is not brought up at the RfC....other laguage wikis are considered external links. That would require a different talk all together. See RfC for more.--Moxy (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The Godfather edit
Why don't you try actually explaining your reasoning for the deletion, rather than simply posting a link? That would show actual respect for your fellow editors. ---  The Old Jacobite  The '45  14:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong in posting a link to the guideline the edit follows rather than try to paraphrase the guideline in a limited number of characters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I followed the "link" and was none the wiser. Have some consideration! — Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh &#124; Buzzard &#124; 16:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why blindly revert if you don't understand the guideline? --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Restoring the Status quo — Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh &#124; Buzzard &#124; 16:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Inter-language template
Hi, I wanted to discuss the recent edit to the Template:Authors of Germany and the Second World War. I wanted to clarify that the way inter-language template works is that when an en.wiki article is created, the link automatically turns blue, pointing to the en.wiki page, and the inter-language link goes away. Then a bot comes around and converts the HTLM code to. With the current version, the red links are still there, but the overall utility of the template is lower. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to reconsider. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)