Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Resolving conflicts between (and within) PERFNAV, FILMNAV, and PERFCAT

It's becoming clear that wording conflicts between these rather palimpsestuous guidelines (and even between sections of the same one) are the primary source of a lot of disputation. Most of this can be avoided by rewriting them to use clearer and mutually compatible language. I ended up doing an in-depth analysis of these problems, over an entire afternoon, in response to what looked at first like an open-and-shut WP:3O, but which revealed a number of interpretational difficulties and conflicts. That analysis is here. The high points and recommendations based on them are below, split up so that people can comment on them severably. I'm happy to revise the proposed wording during discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Objection to RfC

REQUEST: SMcCandlish, Would you consider withdrawing your PERFNAV, FILMNAV, and PERFCAT RFC? A quick read of it shows that almost every issue of confusion is conflated, merged or jumbled with another issue. The problem with your RFC is it will almost certainly result in no consensus and ensure that the confusion continues and possibly lives forever. I would love to work together with you to isolate issues of contention to formulate an RFC that will result in progress--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: Please don't WP:REVTALK at me. You wrote, 'Honestly, I think you either don't understand what the issues are or are trying to keep them from being resolved with your "jump the gun" RFC)' – Wow, that's for the assumption of good faith. Why on earth would anyone want to prevent issues from being resolved, especially if they're using RfC, which is for resolving issues? If you think there's something I'm missing, say what it is. That's why I moved this to the extended discussion section, where extended discussions belong. I'm jumping no gun whatsoever. These problems have been extant and evident for a long time, with no one doing anything to articulate them or propose solutions. The purpose of 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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:

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. Johnny Carson with The Tonight Show). Some cases may call for a combined navbox, when the association is exclusive, e.g. Howard Stern and The Howard Stern Show.
[The example is especially apt because it began as Template:Howard Stern Show and eventually morphed into a combined show and bio template and has been that way for years; it was only renamed a few days ago.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments
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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:PERFNAV is misinterpreted as having a production loophole, due to vagueness; its terms also don't match 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:

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Extended discussion

WP:PERFCAT is interpreted in self-contradictory ways, as having a production loophole, and inconsistently with 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:

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Extended discussion

WP:PERFCAT has nothing to match what is presently WP:FILMNAV

There's just nothing there.

Problems:

Proposed addition:

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments
Extended discussion

Years in football navboxes

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

Screenwriter template content now to be deleted?

The following parties took part in the prior discussion
@Woodensuperman, Randy Kryn, AngusWOOF, AnemoneProjectors, Moxy, Betty Logan, Frietjes, Magioladitis, Davey2010, Jc37, and SMcCandlish:--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Prior discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_11#Proposal_for_WP:PERFNAV_.28or_similar.29 in August and September 2016 resulted in two changes to this guideline: WP:PERFNAV and WP:FILMNAV. The first change (PERFNAV) is the formalization of a longstanding policy regarding content and the second (FILMNAV) is a drastic change in the longstanding policy regarding content that is now being used to delete longstanding content such as template content for screenwriters. I first noticed this when this change wiped out the vast majority of the content at ((Ben Hecht)). Was this the intent of the policy change?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:30, 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)
Moxy, the point of this thread is to make it known that a policy that has had a lot of support to delete producer content from navboxes is now being expanded to deleting screenwriter content from navboxes. We have to make a decision before this goes to far on whether we want screenwriter content to be deleted from navboxes. Did you support the prior discussion with the understanding that it would give rise to screenwriter content being deleted. I am not here to say stuff is getting deleted and that is messed up. I am here to say stuff is now getting deleted, and is that what we want? Do we want screenwriter content deleted from navboxes or not?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / 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.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  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.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / 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:NAVBOXCREEP. If we allow navboxes for multiple roles, we could end up with a dozen navboxes on a lot of film and TV pages, which is a big hindrance to navigation and renders navboxes relatively pointless. The other 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)
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)
Moxy, in order to discourage edits of this nature, we first need to clarify WP:FILMNAV and WP:PERFNAV. What would be helpful is if you could add to my list of broad classes of encyclopedic template content that have been put at issue by the recent change. Maybe you could add some broad songwriter or composer classes to the list above. Then I will open an RFC to seek further clarification on what we consider to be encyclopedic content worth protecting.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / 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)
Randy Kryn, maybe you didn't see this change in my original post at the top of this discussion. Whatever, the letter of the law is the discussion has not touched upon writers and thus the we don't know what the spirit of the law is among those who came to a consensus. However, the substance of the law is that writers are on a rocky turf. Woodensuperman (formerly User:RobSinden) is all over the place. He is already deleting producer and writer content all over the place. His 14:20, 26 July 2017 post above stands behind this, but his 14:02, 27 July 2017 post seems to suggest conciliation. Then his 14:08, 27 July 2017 post reverts to deletionism. He was the force behind the change and no one knows what it means. It seems clear to me that we need to come to a consensus on each type of content that is now at issue or just revert the whole thing. I think there is good reason for the change. PERFNAV enables us to point to a consensus that cast and crew do not belong in navboxes. FILMNAV really just needs to clarify who the creatives are who do belong in the navboxes. I don't really work on music navboxes enough to have a high level understanding of the implications of the change. Above Moxy points out an issue as an example. I don't understand the larger picture. Are we saying that songwriters don't belong on navboxes or that only songwriters belong on navboxes. My only song WP:FA is "Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song)". That song has a bunch of navboxes at the bottom that seem well placed in my mind. I am not sure how this policy change affects those templates, but Moxy's example makes me wonder.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / 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.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / 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:
Rather than the original text:
I think we should say something like
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)

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:

Film

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:BIDIRECTIONAL to require a template to be included on every page that it links to.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / 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)
Woodensuperman, Are you saying that screenwriters are considered crew?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / 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)

Scripted episodic television

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:BIDIRECTIONAL to require a template to be included on every page that it links to.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / 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)
Woodensuperman, Of the abovementioned, what do you consider to be crew?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / 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?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course they are crew. --woodensuperman (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Reality television

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 ((Big Brother)), ((Idol series)) or ((The Apprentice)) as the broader templates. I was thinking more about the ((Big Brother in the United States)), ((American Idol)) and ((The Apprentice (U.S. TV series))). Yes, I have expanded the list for the notable contestants and winners.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Operas

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:BIDIRECTIONAL is relevant? Templates need not appear on a an article. The characters issue needs to be hashed out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
You are probably right on the directors issue here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / 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., ((The Magic Flute)), ((Madama Butterfly)), ((Carmen)).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Musical theater

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.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Plays

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)
Woodensuperman, Could you clarify your point about authors. No one has more notable plays than William Shakespeare. All of them are on his biography without issue. Aside from him nobody has more than a handful of notable plays worth creating templates for: Oscar Wilde, Anton Chekhov and maybe a few others.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Again, the director is not a creative influence on the enduring play.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Ballets

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.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Novels

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. Charles Dickens has the most templated ones. This is an issue to resolve rather than punt to the FILMNAV type template.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Mythology/folklore

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 ((The Phantom of the Opera)). He would have us add the writers, directors, composers, lyricists, screenwriters, choreographers, etc, etc, of all the multiple adaptations (and there are many) to this navbox, which quite frankly is a disastrous approach! Much better to leave to the better considered RFC below. --woodensuperman (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Tony seems to be forgetting the long term consensus not to have crew in navboxes. See these: WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Template:1966-1968 Batman television series cast and crew, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 12#Template:Star Trek film crew, 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)
Woodensuperman, Have I ever said crew should be included in templates. We must have a disagreement on what is considered to be crew because I am attempting to isolate main creative contributors.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / 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. ((Oklahoma!)), but I do think that the creative crew roles should be included in FILMNAV. I.e., a composer, screenwriter or producer should be able to have a navbox with those subsections.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Best practice for musical artist navboxes

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)

Tangential entries at Template:Phil Ochs

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)

Pertinent red link removed on the Ringo Starr template

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 Photograph from the 'Books' section of the ((Ringo Starr main)) template, and uses an essay for his or her reasoning. I clearly recall a discussion here which ended in allowing such links, so if someone can point that out I'll store it somewhere for when this kind of thing comes up and fix the Starr template. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Randy, you added this link with zero intention of creating the article. Per WP:EXISTING and 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)
@Randy Kryn: "allows" is the wrong verb. Red links should be exception. 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)
@Randy Kryn: It wasn't here. It was at WT:RED and the sentences at 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 ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  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 ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Notification of WP:RFC regarding including historical figures in navboxes

Join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Removal_of_historical_characters_from_navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Navboxes_in_episode_lists.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Navbox redirecting to sections of articles

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

Ensemble cast award navboxes

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)

Reality show contestants in navboxes (again)

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)

Reality show contestants in navboxes: alphabetical or chronological?

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)
More