This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Infoboxes This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles Awards This template is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles

There are about 600 pages which use a handmade version of this template. I don't know if these are pre-template or what. I'm trying to clean these up in support of MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do#Infobox, but it's definitely just above my AWB skills, so I'm intending to request a bot for it. Is there anything special that a bot creator would need to care about? I notice for example the requirement that everything in this template needs to have its own article, but I would suspect this template does not have all such cases. Izno (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just from a pre-pseudocode standpoint, my thought (as a bot op) would be to first convert only the pages that had the named awards, change the template so that the non-named awards need to be bluelinked (likely using an #ifexist), and then convert all of those pages. It would allow for easier conversion and make it so that we could potentially add tracking cats for the redlinked awards. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Izno, sounds good, have you requested a bot for that? Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request now. Izno (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Indagate (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Paula Abdul § Missing awards?

Primefac (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

award21, award21W, award21N, award22, award22W, award22N are in the docs but were never added to the template. Should they be, or are the entries getting too long? Zaathras (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um... you removed them. ​ Primefac (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I managed that, sorry, thought i was just adding them to the error-checking. Will revert and look at it all again. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most uses of the total parameters (|wins= and |nominations=) are meaningless WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The likelihood is that anyone who wins a "Kerrang! Award" [to pick one at random] will also win awards from lesser organisations, publications, or journalists covering similar music. Who decides which awards are notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia article? Any cutoff level of notability is arbitrary. To list the most notable nominations and cut off the rest is acceptable, because a line must be drawn somewhere. But if the list happens to be, say, 9 items long, you should not put the number 9 in the infobox: it invests an essentially arbitrary number with a fictitious level of authenticity. jnestorius^(talk) 11:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the solution is to replace "Total" in the template with "Summary"? I think there is some utility in adding up the totals in the infobox so readers can get a general idea of how many awards something won (i.e., did it get a few dozen or a few hundred?). But I agree that we can adjust the wording used in lists to avoid implying that these sums are definitive. I particularly agree that it should be avoided in prose sections, as you pointed out here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think eyeballing the subtotals is enough for such a general idea, without need for any grand total. You can tell a few dozen from a few hundred, and you don't need to know at a glance that it's 48 and not 53. More importantly you can tell if the list is restricted to major awards lots of people have heard of, or includes more obscure ones. jnestorius^(talk) 12:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the infobox is collapsed (which by default it is), there's no way to quickly glance at the totals. And I think it would be more challenging than one might expect to quickly guess how many awards there are in total just by eyeballing it – the length of the infobox list doesn't directly correlate to the total number of awards.

Another option to clarify that the totals are not definitive might be to tweak the footnote, though I think some brainstorming on the new wording would be needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are non-problems. You can eyeball a short list of big numbers or a long list of small numbers; the total is meaningless anyway. If an editor judges that clicking expand is too much trouble for readers in a particular instance then the editor can set |nocollapse=y. jnestorius^(talk) 14:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I would support deprecating the parameter entirely. I don't think it is OR (per WP:CALC), but I agree that the total is meaningless. Not all awards are equal (e.g. Emmys are more prestigious than Fangoria Chainsaw Awards). Maybe uncollapse the the list by default (i.e. remove |class=mw-collapsed but keep |class=mw-collapsible), so that people can still see at a glance how "successful" a given person is? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose deprecation. However, there may be instances where the list of awards being included is in some objective non-Wikipedia sense definitive rather than arbitrary. I don't know of any, but in theory its possible; things like Big Four beauty pageants or EGOT may be rather trivial but they seem to have a definite real-world existence. In such a minority of cases, "total" numbers could be permitted. (As regards OR: my thinking is that the total would be OR if the implication is that the Wikipedia threshold of notability for inclusion in the list has some real-world existence.) jnestorius^(talk) 23:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]