Talk:23rd Quebec Cinema Awards

Ordinal

Just leaving a note here to acknowledge that even though this is the 23rd ceremony in the history of these awards, much of the media coverage is actively referring to it as the 22nd gala Québec Cinéma — see, for example, this hit. That doesn't appear to just be a typo on their part, either, because virtually all other media hits are doing the same, and I can't find any hits referring to it as the 23rd gala. So I've double and triple checked our past articles about the first 22 to determine whether we accidentally skipped a number, and we haven't. But even more importantly, last year's livestreamed webcast, which is currently occupying the 22nd position in our set of articles, was also referred to the media as the "22nd" awards at the time (see e.g. here), and was definitely never called the "21st" awards at all.

I haven't found a source to officially confirm this, but for the time being my working theory has been that because last year's covidified ceremony was a livestream instead of a traditional gala, the organization decided that it didn't count as a real "gala", and thus this year's presentation is the "22nd" gala instead of the "23rd" gala because last year's awards weren't a physical "gala". Which would be ridiculous, but it's all I've got. I don't know what to do about this — I don't think we should knock the 2020 ceremony to some unordinated title while keeping all of the others ordinated, so if this 22e thing persists we may have to consider moving them all to "[YYYY]" instead of "#st" to get around the problem. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC on titling issue

Due to an off-wiki issue created by the actual topic of the articles itself, there's now a permanent titling problem which needs some discussion about how to handle it because there's no simple or straightforward answer. I've already posted to the talk page of WP:FILM for some outside guidance on this, but in two weeks I've only been able to get participation from one other person, and that's not good enough — this needs input and resolution. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Background

As of last year, all of our articles about the Jutra/Iris ceremonies, up to and including the 22nd Quebec Cinema Awards, were ordinated correctly per the ordinal number assigned by their media coverage at the time. However, because last year's award gala was cancelled for the obvious reason and replaced on the fly with a webcast to announce the winners, Québec Cinéma now seems to have retroactively decided that it didn't count as a "gala" — and so instead of calling this years' ceremony the 23rd gala because it's being held the year after the 22nd awards, they seem to have kicked last year's not-a-gala out of line so that they can call this year's awards the 22nd gala. Basically, even though last year's awards were called the 22nd at the time, they now seem to have declared that last year was a special outlier, not to be ordinated at all because they're counting "number of times that physical galas have been held in an auditorium" instead of "number of times that awards have been given out".

But what that means is that we're now out of phase with the "official" numbering of the awards: the upcoming 2021 ceremony is the 23rd time that awards have been presented, but is officially now the 22nd awards because it will be only the 22nd time there's been an actual public event instead of just a livestream.

So I don't know what to do about this:

1. Leave everything alone, and just accept that we're now going to be permanently out of phase with the official numbering of the ceremonies?
2. Rename 22nd Quebec Cinema Awards and 23rd Quebec Cinema Awards to "22nd Quebec Cinema Awards (2020)" and "22nd Quebec Cinema Awards (2021)" so that everything stays in line with the numbering it was given at the time?
3. Bump 22 to some special unordinated title so that 23 can just have an undisambiguated 22?
4. Scratch the ordinal numbering entirely, and move them all to "YYYY" instead of an ordinal number, even though that's not ordinarily standard practice for most film awards?

I'll note that the sole participant in the original WP:FILM discussion favoured option 2, but only one person weighing in isn't enough to proceed. I personally consider options 1 and 3 to be non-starters, and would prefer either 2 (best case) or 4 (worse, but still not as bad as 1 or 3), but I don't want to decide this arbitrarily without broader input. Essentially, there's no answer here that isn't less than ideal, so it's just a question of what's the least bad option.

Any ideas? Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Bearcat, as I read your backgrounder info my inclination was option #3 - use a special unordinated title (perhaps "2020 Quebec Cinema Awards"). This year's awards and all future ceremonies could have a brief mention that it's the (number)th Awards Ceremony and the (number+1)th year that awards have been presented overall. PKT(alk) 14:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• I support #3 as well because the other options would result in false information, or not sticking to WP:COMMONNAME policy. Last year's would become "2020 Quebec Cinema Awards" and this year would resume the traditional numbering (22nd...). If you still don't get enough participation, you could also do WP:BOLD action as long as you have reliable sources to back it up. — Starforce¹³ 14:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• If I'm understanding the background that last year's event is no longer referred to as the 22nd, then I think it's a combination of 2 and 3. Our approach ought to be renaming that article to 2020 Quebec Cinema Awards (since calling it 22nd would be incorrect), and then continuing the ordinal numbering with this year's event at 22nd Quebec Cinema Awards, along with explanatory hatnotes in both places. Kudos to the organization for making it confusing for no particular reason. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Having the titles be unmoored from the actual names of the events seems like a terrible state of affairs. I think that option #2 is the most practical and reasonable solution, even if it makes two of the articles have awkward names; #4 would be reasonable, but not practical (if this isn't common practice for film awards). jp×g 18:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• If the 2020 awards were called the 22nd Quebec Cinema Awards, and the 2021 awards are going to be called the 22nd Quebec Cinema Awards, then we have two award shows with the same name. When people have the same name, Wikipedia distinguishs them with a descriptor in brackets. Option 2 seems like it fulfills this standard practice. If the organisers officially give the 2020 awards a different name, then we can move the 2020 article to the new name (but keep the 2021 descriptor for the 2021 awards). Option 1 is a non-starter for me, option 4 is not ideal because it's not the standard practice. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• 3. No, 2. No, wait: after following the link to the 22nd page, then finding and following the Quebec Cinema Awards link, which is piped to Prix Iris, and then following the link to the official site and landing at https://gala.quebeccinema.ca/ , I find absolutely no mention of 22nd or 23rd (or 22eme). They seem to be calling it the "Iris 2021" award. Shouldn't we be then doing that? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

How the award organizes its website isn't a key to how they are or aren't ordinated — if instead of looking at Québec Cinéma's nominations database you look at their press release here, notice the presence of "22e édition du Gala Québec Cinéma" in the text alongside nominees like La déesse des mouches à feu and Souterrain (ergo 2021) and a publication date of April 26, 2021. And for more examples, This link has "22e Gala Québec Cinéma" in the headline but is clearly about the 2021 awards (Souterrain, Déesse des mouches), but compare this link, which also has "22e Gala Québec Cinéma" in the headline but lists nominees like Antigone and Il pleuvait des oiseaux (ergo 2020). The Oscars, incidentally, do the exact same thing: officially ordinate the ceremonies, but organize the website by years instead of ordinals. (That is, if you forget what won Best Picture last year and check their website to remind yourself, you have to click on the text "2020" in the header bar, not "92nd" — but that doesn't make them not the 92nd awards.)
The problem with years, as a rule, is that if the awards are presented early in the current year for content that was released in the previous year, then are they the 2021 awards because that's when they were presented, or the 2020 awards because they're being presented for 2020 work? You can always find sources that do both things and thus get sucked into an unresolvable edit war, which is precisely why we ordinate — normally, ordination is avoidable only for awards presented at the end of the year for work released in the same year as the presentation, and not for awards presented early in the year following the eligibility period. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – do we have any reliable sources from this year discussing this? We can see how they refer to the 2020 event after the change was already announced. —El Millo (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I can find absolutely no sources that actively discuss the naming, no. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Option 2 might be worth pursuing as a temporary solution. The ordination might be cleared up by the awards next month when the awards actually happen, and then the disambiguated links could be renamed more appropriately. At this point I think we just need unambiguous links so the internal linking is clean. Once you have that renaming the articles would be straightforward. Betty Logan (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Alternate option 4 just rename it by year instead. Many things have ordinally numbered editions, but Wikipedia uses the year it occurred instead. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  That might be okay for sporting events, or even film festivals, but it can be ambiguous for award ceremonies that award films from the previous year. For example, Titanic was 1997 Best Picture but it won at the 1998 oscars. It doesn't really solve the problem, it just extends ambiguity to all the other articles in the series. Betty Logan (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  • The 1995 Grammies redirects to the Grammy Awards that were awarded in 1995, as it should, since it is the year the ceremony occurred, when the award was given out. It should be no different here. It is the year the award is awarded, not the year the film was made, was first shown, was officially released, as all these years can be several years apart. -- 67.70.27.105 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that your interpretation is not by any stretch of the imagination universal. For any award where the eligibility year and the presentation year are two different things, you can always, always, always find sources splitting down the middle — some sources will refer to the 93rd Academy Awards which were just presented a couple of weeks ago as the 2021 awards because that's when the ceremony was held, while others will refer to it as the 2020 awards because that's the year whose film releases were being considered. Which is precisely why we use "93rd", so that people don't editwar over whether they're the 2021 awards or the 2020 awards. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Comments

@ Bearcat: I arrived here per a talk page bot notification. I just briefly glanced at this and there is an obvious issue. I am just curious, is there a main reason you felt you had to start a formal RFC? I would understand if this was a higher-classed article or there was contention but I missed it if there was editing contention or a reversion. We usually follow using the more common name (I fully support), however, there are many instances (See: WP:OTHERNAMES and MOS:ALTNAME) including ambiguity, and titling issues among them, where we might have to use alternate naming, even lacking reliable sources.

A lack of input, it seems to me, would indicate that you could have implemented a change to conform to that usage --AND-- solve a titling problem as a bold edit. With policy and guideline criteria, talk page, and project page notification any possible reversion or discussion could then be dealt with. Any reversion that might create (or re-create) a title conflict would not be justifiable anyway, Per {{u|Starforce]] a bold move to any of the choices would be actually better than what is now presented.

We are having a discussion and it seems suggestions are wide. There are two that like #3 (obviously in regard to common name) This does not solve the immediate problem of the titling conflict. Since a previous editor (you stated) supports #2 and others here, I am alright with that per BOLD as suggested by Starforce (although that suggestion actually includes having reliable sources) and at least as per Betty Logan, as a temporary solution. I am not a fan of parenthetical disambiguation unless it is the only obvious choice. This might be one of those cases. Renaming, in anticipation of possibly changing the names of other titles to match, would need a farther-reaching RFC than this. This would be a reason why we would solve an immediate issue (boldly) then seek consensus on if it is the correct name or another might be better. As I stated, at only a glance, my comments are not aimed at a particular name but a solution to a naming conflict. Hope this helps. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There has to be a way to settle on a choice before a choice can be implemented, wouldn't you think? Ergo, discussion in order to settle on a choice? Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Always a choice and I prefer a discussion over flat-out BRD but this is more a formal route over a local issue. There "might" not have been a confrontation (unless there was something I missed) and it isn't under sanctions.

I can understand not wanting to proceed without a clear consensus. You seemed alright with #2 so there was about the same consensus to use it now.

I see a lot of people using the formal RFC so "if" it is to be the norm it seems we probably need to reflect that in WP:RFCBEFORE. Anyway, it seems to me after the many days this has been open there is a consensus to use #2. Otr500 (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Coda

And then, after all of last year's bullshit, they numbered the 2022 awards as the 24th, vitiating the problem since that retroactively makes 2021 the 23rd after all. Nice job, guys. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)