User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 12
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Robsinden in topic American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Anthony Asquith
Funnily enough, I disagree that separating out silent and sound films is unnecessary. It's extremely helpful in understanding the trajectory of a director's career and it's used on {{Alfred Hitchcock}} and other pages. There aren't that many directors whose work covers both eras and the change is invariably a landmark. Can I ask you to reconsider? --Mr impossible (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- There are only four sound films, so there's no need to show them separately at {{Anthony Asquith}}. If there was a more even split, I could see you might have a point, but for four films it simply isn't worth it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at Anthony Asquith#Filmography, I have just noticed that the distinction between sound and silent isn't made there. If the distinction is to be made anywhere, it should be there, where the career trajectory can correctly be discussed and contextualized, not on a simple navigation aid. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Two interesting points there. One is that Asquith's silents are of such particular interest that three of them have been restored by the BFI in the last 10 years. They really are some of the finest British films of the 1920s. The second point is that we obviously have slightly different understandings of "navigation aids". Their function, surely, isn't just to move about. They help make visual sense of collections of information. They are overviews. That infobox used to inform users at a glance that Anthony Asquith was a director whose career spanned the silent and sound eras. Now it doesn't. That's why I think the information has value. --Mr impossible (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- A navigation box only needs to show a chronological progression, to enable the reader to move from one article to another. It isn't a place for additional information. As I mention above, the place to plot a career trajectory is on the article, not a navbox. I recently watched Shooting Stars, thought it was great BTW! :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- We'll have to agree to disagree. But not about Shooting Stars which is awesome. I love the scene where they go and watch a talkie. Witty and self-referential without being completely self indulgent. --Mr impossible (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- A navigation box only needs to show a chronological progression, to enable the reader to move from one article to another. It isn't a place for additional information. As I mention above, the place to plot a career trajectory is on the article, not a navbox. I recently watched Shooting Stars, thought it was great BTW! :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Two interesting points there. One is that Asquith's silents are of such particular interest that three of them have been restored by the BFI in the last 10 years. They really are some of the finest British films of the 1920s. The second point is that we obviously have slightly different understandings of "navigation aids". Their function, surely, isn't just to move about. They help make visual sense of collections of information. They are overviews. That infobox used to inform users at a glance that Anthony Asquith was a director whose career spanned the silent and sound eras. Now it doesn't. That's why I think the information has value. --Mr impossible (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Cities in Azerbaijan
Greetings.
Now that I have seen, that all the cities and towns in {{Cities in Azerbaijan}} are indeed listed in {{Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan}} which I have overlooked, you can redirect this template to that template or delete it - whichever method the administrators see fit to choose. --Sondrion (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Have a Template:Small Solar System bodies. --Izno (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey
Why did you redirect all the Nebula Award subtemplates (1965-1980, 1980-2000, 2000-2020) into one central template? As with the Hugos, subtemplates make it a lot easier to read because they're not as cluttered.
I await your explanation. DS (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
- To aid navigation between all the winners. They're not really that cluttered and the split templates hinder complete navigation of the topic. It was discussed a long while back, maybe 3-4 years ago, but I'm struggling to find the discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think it'd be better with internavigable subtemplates per era, as with the Hugos. DS (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- This approach was decided against ages ago and the navboxes have gradually been re-integrated over time. The navboxes aren't too large, so there's no reason to split. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly, I think it'd be better with internavigable subtemplates per era, as with the Hugos. DS (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Template:Duchesses of Cornwall
I closed the TfD as "merge". It would be great if you or Celia Homeford could make this happen. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you please point me to the rfc you mentioned in this edit - thanks Agathoclea (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, sure: WT:CLT#Request for comment: Use of interlanguage links in Wikipedia templates. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Pitty I missed that, as that is an unfortunate result. Agathoclea (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers
are American Stanley Cup Finals television announcers performers? Frietjes (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say so. They are presenting something on television, so I'd say that is a performance. There's a load of WP:CAT#T violations too! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Technically, sports announcers like this are broadcast news journalists (albeit for live sporting events), not "performers" like say entertainers in the traditional sense. BornonJune8, 10:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe, maybe not. WP:PERFNAV still applies though. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Technically, sports announcers like this are broadcast news journalists (albeit for live sporting events), not "performers" like say entertainers in the traditional sense. BornonJune8, 10:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm, it seems that all the navboxes in Category:National Hockey League on television navigational boxes are a bit of a mess! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- The navboxes are reasonably well organized one step at a time, and go from television broadcaster to broadcaster. So they aren't exactly "a mess" as you would like to quickly categorize. BornonJune8, 10:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- They are absolutely a mess. They include a lot of articles that are not specifically about the TV coverage, but about the games, networks, etc, and a lot of presenters and commentators which fail WP:PERFNAV. They seriously need a good trim and tidy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, then how exactly w/o out and out deleting them should they look like? By virtue of its nature, the games (said games had to be broadcast by one particular network after-all and said commentators had to have called those games in the first place) and networks are be default, a part of said individual coverage. If it's not about single TV networks individual coverage of a particular sports league, then what should it be about? It would be kind of vague to not try to give forth a broader picture so to speak. You can't just have it both ways. You keep saying that "they're absolute mess" but offer no clear-cut alternative or solution to the matter. BornonJune8, 22:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Even if the templates in question don't have a "proper list" of commentators, they still indicate that they worked for that particular network's coverage of said sport. It's just that it's a more "individual" way of describing their broadcasting careers. The announcers themselves are equally if not more important the the very essence and nature of these particular articles. And saying that games aren't specifically about the TV coverage is extremely short-sighted and ignorant. It would be like saying that being curious over which particular network broadcast an important game (e.g. a postseason game or All-Star Game) at any given time is non-essential pretty much. Otherwise, what's the point in detailing network television coverage of major sporting events? BornonJune8, 23:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, then how exactly w/o out and out deleting them should they look like? By virtue of its nature, the games (said games had to be broadcast by one particular network after-all and said commentators had to have called those games in the first place) and networks are be default, a part of said individual coverage. If it's not about single TV networks individual coverage of a particular sports league, then what should it be about? It would be kind of vague to not try to give forth a broader picture so to speak. You can't just have it both ways. You keep saying that "they're absolute mess" but offer no clear-cut alternative or solution to the matter. BornonJune8, 22:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
- They are absolutely a mess. They include a lot of articles that are not specifically about the TV coverage, but about the games, networks, etc, and a lot of presenters and commentators which fail WP:PERFNAV. They seriously need a good trim and tidy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- The navboxes are reasonably well organized one step at a time, and go from television broadcaster to broadcaster. So they aren't exactly "a mess" as you would like to quickly categorize. BornonJune8, 10:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
One solution might be to create a single {{National Hockey League on television}} navbox, with links to the coverage by all broadcasters in it. We shouldn't be detailing the broadcasting careers of all the individuals in these navboxes, per WP:PERFNAV. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- There already is one or something similar {{National Hockey League on national television}}. And plus, that particular template is a more general one and not encompassing an entire dedicated history to a single network's coverage of the NHL (which could naturally go further in-depth and detail on when and what they covered). BornonJune8 (talk), 02:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- They should probably all be merged to that then. The individual network navboxes already go too far and have too much tangential information that does not relate to the networks' coverage, or fail WP:PERFNAV. Once you take out all this unsuitable information, there's not a lot left. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- If I go to an article for an individual network's coverage of the NHL for instance, then wouldn't you or I most logically, would first and foremost want to learn about that particular network's coverage throughout the years before anything more broad-scale and general in information? You can't just out and out say that something doesn't truly relate to a networks' respective coverage if you don't actually have a clear idea of what or when they covered a particular event such as a playoff game. BornonJune8 (talk), 02:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- You seem to be confusing navboxes with articles. While that information might be appropriate at an article, it shouldn't be included in a navbox. A navbox for a specific network should only link articles directly related. The sports finals, games, etc, discuss the sporting event, not the coverage of the event by the network. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Again, your argument that this or that doesn't relate to a networks coverage doesn't have a lot of weight since they broadcast these respective games in the first place. I know that I'm jumping to conclusions, but maybe if you actually read between the lines, and actually cared to get a better understanding of the context of these particular articles and their templates, it would be much easier to get a grasp of why this "tangential information" goes together. It's as if, I get the impression that, "Well, I don't really follow hockey, so I don't understand why this goes here regardless of whether or not they covered this event and these people were there to cover it." What, there shouldn't be an indicator at all to tell readers about which respective broadcaster televised said major sporting event at any given year? These networks pay the leagues millions if not billions of dollars a year for the broadcasting rights. BornonJune8 (talk), 02:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Don't take this personally, but I get the impression that you don't fully or entirely know or understand the NHL or more importantly, who were/are its dedicated network television coverage/partners (i.e. exactly what they did and had to offer). Therefore, you need to draw to a conclusion that if you don't personally get it or is not of value to you, then nobody else should be allowed to get a better sense of what any individual network did (i.e. whom they employed to announce, which important events that they had the opportunity to cover, etc.) BornonJune8 (talk), 02:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your comments that the games themselves have no relation to the actual coverage of the sport by the network makes absolutely no sense. It would be sort of like saying that you can't acknowledge that NBC was the American network that broadcast this particular year's Stanley Cup Finals since they don't go hand and hand one way or another. Whether you want to admit it or acknowledge it or not, these games in question were broadcast by SOMEBODY in particular. Again, you're not reading between the lines and having an extremely narrow focus. You're just taking something that you seemingly didn't actually bother to read into or fully understand such as its context and therefore, decided that you might as well throw the baby out with the bathwater. BornonJune8 (talk), 02:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I think the real issue here is not whether or not I understand hockey, but more to do with you not understanding how navboxes are supposed to work. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Take {{NHL on CBS}} for example. The WP:PERFNAV and all the other issues aside, how are Krylya Sovetov Moscow or Bobby Orr even remotely related to the coverage of the NHL on CBS? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Well, simply put one of the most iconic images in Stanley Cup Finals history, Bobby Orr's "flying goal" to clinch the 1970 Stanley Cup Finals for the Boston Bruins, was in the United States, televised by CBS. BornonJune8 (talk), 16:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Or take {{NHL on NBC}}. What do the rivalries between teams have to do with NBC? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- The rivalries in question from that particular era in time, have made up the crux of NBC's NHL coverage since they started broadcasting it again in 2006. BornonJune8 (talk), 16:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- All far too tangential for navbox inclusion then. See what I mean about these navboxes all being a mess? I think WP:TNT is the best option for all of these. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- The rivalries in question from that particular era in time, have made up the crux of NBC's NHL coverage since they started broadcasting it again in 2006. BornonJune8 (talk), 16:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Your comments that the games themselves have no relation to the actual coverage of the sport by the network makes absolutely no sense. It would be sort of like saying that you can't acknowledge that NBC was the American network that broadcast this particular year's Stanley Cup Finals since they don't go hand and hand one way or another. Whether you want to admit it or acknowledge it or not, these games in question were broadcast by SOMEBODY in particular. Again, you're not reading between the lines and having an extremely narrow focus. You're just taking something that you seemingly didn't actually bother to read into or fully understand such as its context and therefore, decided that you might as well throw the baby out with the bathwater. BornonJune8 (talk), 02:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Don't take this personally, but I get the impression that you don't fully or entirely know or understand the NHL or more importantly, who were/are its dedicated network television coverage/partners (i.e. exactly what they did and had to offer). Therefore, you need to draw to a conclusion that if you don't personally get it or is not of value to you, then nobody else should be allowed to get a better sense of what any individual network did (i.e. whom they employed to announce, which important events that they had the opportunity to cover, etc.) BornonJune8 (talk), 02:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- If I go to an article for an individual network's coverage of the NHL for instance, then wouldn't you or I most logically, would first and foremost want to learn about that particular network's coverage throughout the years before anything more broad-scale and general in information? You can't just out and out say that something doesn't truly relate to a networks' respective coverage if you don't actually have a clear idea of what or when they covered a particular event such as a playoff game. BornonJune8 (talk), 02:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- They should probably all be merged to that then. The individual network navboxes already go too far and have too much tangential information that does not relate to the networks' coverage, or fail WP:PERFNAV. Once you take out all this unsuitable information, there's not a lot left. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- There already is one or something similar {{National Hockey League on national television}}. And plus, that particular template is a more general one and not encompassing an entire dedicated history to a single network's coverage of the NHL (which could naturally go further in-depth and detail on when and what they covered). BornonJune8 (talk), 02:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Frietjes: - What's your take on this? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- the "lore" sections are of questionable value, since navboxes are not supposed to be substitutes for articles. the fact that there is a title article for these navboxes is good, but not everything mentioned in the article needs to be in a navbox. the line is not so clear. Frietjes (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |