Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cartoon Network/Style recommendations

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network 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.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network

Wikipedia essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This page was nominated for deletion on 16 June 2011. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Is "is a X-award winning" OK for the lead?

Seen a anon editor (67.36.61.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is/has been removing any won awards from show leads citing that other shows do it this way and being FAs they know best and yadda yadda yadda, best argument they have is because of the lack of RS proving the win. I don't know if that is right, they do have point involving compact lead sentences though "among others" and "over last" are weird terms that don't have meaning. Anyway, point is this, should the award wins (not noms, noms have no place in the lead) being mentioned in the lead be explicitly explained in the CNMOS?

Right now, the best I could find a short discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#The_opening_sentence, but there doesn't appear to be clear consensus one way or the other. At best, make sure that the lead is still WP:NPOV, but citing awards is not necessarily non-neutral. "so and so is an emmy-winning whatever" is pretty clear, no word spinning involved, and may help to grab someone's interest. I'd probably say that "nominated" is unnecessary in the lead. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did say that nominations don't need to be in the lead and you didn't answer the question. I know about the talks going on where no consensus exists and how it seems a bit like POV pushing without any sourcing to back it up hence why I'd like to know where we stand on the content. I'm swaying towards keeping in wins for Emmys and Annies if we cite them and I feel we should be specifically mentioning our stance but want to know which way we point. treelo _radda 17:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awards which are cited to the primary source (the awards organization) may be mentioned in the lead. Awards which are unable to be cited to the primary source (such as the day-time Emmys, which does not appear to maintain an archive), should not be mentioned in the lead, but may be mentioned in the body with a cite to a secondary source. Nominations should not be mentioned in the lead, but may be mentioned in the body, with the same stipulations. Yngvarr (t) (c) 19:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the copy for what I (or you) will put into the MOS that does! Put it on in, seems I have some reverting to attend to. treelo _radda 19:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons

We should explicitly mention that we do not support flag icons (e.g. {{USA}}) in any articles. Yes/no/perhaps? Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should be doing so because whilst it's not a guideline, the use of these templates only serve to prettify, nothing more. There was an intention to create a new template based on {{vgrelease}} but for production country/first airing country instead. I think I'll make up a small one in a sandbox and post my findings on WT:TOON. treelo _radda 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]