Jump to content

Talk:54th Annual Grammy Awards

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Format

[edit]

Hello there, I've noticed that this Grammy articles that the title of work (singles, albums, songs) are ahead of the artist's names despite most award-related pages show them the other way around, so my question is. Is it possible that we can write the artist's name and then the title of the work they are nominated for.

  • Example: Arcade Fire — The Suburbs / Lady Antebellum - "Need You Now"

On the other hand, for song-related awards (Song of the Year, Best Rock Song, etc.) is it possible that we can just add the songwriter's name then the name of the song and the performer's name in parenthesis. Songwriter's name — "Name of the song" (Performing artists)

  • Example: Dave Haywood, Josh Kear, Charles Kelley & Hillary Scott — "Need You Now" (Lady Antebellum)

what do you guys think? Tony0106 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same for both articles, it goes:

Name of recipient (artist for albums, songwriters for the song awards) - Name of album/ song. The performers' names are only included in the song awards to indicate who performed the song in case they didn't get credit for writing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.164.8 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it should be like this:
  • For Albums: The Suburbs - Arcade Fire
  • For Songs: "Need You Now" - Lady Antebellum

a lot of sections in the current article don't follow the rule and it takes a little time to fix them. you can use the past articles as an example, like 53rd Grammy Awards. (Reza (Let'sTalk) 17:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Why can't we have all the info for Song-related awards in one line, at least for those that aren't in the general field, for example:

  • "Walk" — Dave Gohl, songwriter (Foo Fighters)

instead of

  • Walk
    • Dave Gohl, songwriter (Foo Fighters)

I suggest that a couple of weeks ago but nobody paid attention now that I was trying to fix this people is just saying its vandalism and don't want to discuss about this. Tony0106 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

because it's a format that wikipedia used many years for these articles. (Reza (Let'sTalk) 14:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Actually Wikipedia started using that format last year and that was because I suggest to do so but then I realized that we can have it in just one line. So why can't we change it??? Tony0106 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cause it should be decide by the others and for doing this is kinda late, cause if we do this we need a lot of work to change the past articles to this style. but anyway it's more beautiful than the first one. Reza (Let'sTalk) 21:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's even a lot more work to do for all the pages prior to 2008. They don't have the nominees and they don't follow the same format we've been using for the last two years. That is why I still want to discuss this and I actually suggested that a couple of months ago before the nominations were released but nobody really paid attention. So we can still discuss it now that we're in the grammy season. Tony0106 (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes. you're right, but seriously the style you suggested before is really looking nice and better than the old one. it puts the name of the songs and the song-writers in different position and people are finding it easy to read. I already asked some of my friends about it and they found the current one easier than the last one. I know it's a little bit long but it looks better. and about the past years lists... God, tell me about it! we need to gather the past nominees and add them to the list. those list should have made their way to the feature lists but their incomplete. Reza (Let'sTalk) 23:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Nominations

[edit]

they have these on every other award page. why not here?--99.101.160.159 (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. actually the section existed before but i think somebody removed it accidentally. thx for mentioning it to us. Reza (Let'sTalk) 21:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't think this is needed. So many artists get multiple nominations. Its really only worth noting the ones that get a lot of nominations. I would only note those who receive five or more nominations. I would do this in the introduction at the top of the page. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes your right, but as the past article (all the award pages) all have this section so we better keep it this way. Reza (Let'sTalk) 19:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to look at the pages on other Grammy ceremonies. All the other pages (with the exception of 2011 & 2012) do not have this section. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why there's have to be such a big deal when it comes to add a new section to an annual article (if it wasn't there last year, you cannot write it down) I mean, what's the problem of adding new sections to an article? Last year we decided to add that section (which exists in other award pages) and we've been using it since. Why it wasn't using prior to that? Because nobody brought the idea before. Why it hasn't been added? because its 52 pages you would have to edit and not everybody has the time to do so (it might be added on a latter stage thought) and there's a lot of missing information. I, for instance, have been working in the categories' pages and I can't find the nominees from the 1967-68 grammys. Does that mean that I'd have to exclude the nominees simply because one year is missing? There's always discussion like this on every article. I think we should make a new rule stating that there is no problem with adding new sections, instead. Tony0106 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing this out there, Bon Iver should be listed as having 2 wins in the multiple nominations/multiple wins section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.225.108 (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Boys

[edit]

A source in the canadian press stated that the Beach Boys would perform. However, the recording academy's website says nothing about this. In regard to posting info about performers and presenters, we should only put in the names that were mentioned on the academy's website. Not every news source is correct. An official website for the recording academy (grammy awards) is the best source. If they are to be performing then the academy's site will state it. Lets just wait this out. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maroon 5 and Foster The People did a tribute to Beach Boys followed by a performance by the band themselves Jeremyeyork (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fields

[edit]

To clear up any confusion on the different fields in regard to the category changes, the following page shows the respective names of each field and if the names have changed since last year:

http://www.grammy.org/recording-academy/announcement/category-list

--MusicGeek101 (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Performers

[edit]

I suggest the performers be listed how they were last year - with the performer(s) and song they performed in the order they were performed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesmarc923 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Reza (Let'sTalk) 11:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. All the comments apart from the nominator's are opposed, and are accompanied by valid rationales. DrKiernan (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Nomination done on behalf of User:Janbryan per this discussion. Janbryan feels the article titles should follow the official name of the award series as decided by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences. The list given is a sample - the request would be for all the articles as found on {{Grammy Award years}} SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important point, as the main use throughout Wikipedia (in lists, templates, categories, internal links, etc) is by year rather than number. This is, I think, because the year identifies the - well - year of the award better than the number. People may wish to know - who won Album of the Year in 2007, but they are less likely to want to know - who won the 49th ceremony of the Grammy Awards. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although I am neutral, I wish to point out that apparently, based on that previous discussion and the relevant page histories, there was a massive page move in early October from the "Nth Grammy Awards" to the "[YEAR] Grammy Awards" convention without going through WP:RM or properly advertising that discussion. Apparently User:Janbryan and another user objected to that massive page move, and hence this new RM discussion. Thus, I think it's fair that if this discussion ends up as "No Consensus", the articles should revert back to the convention before early October, with the "Nth Grammy Awards" convention. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your thinking; however, it's worth pointing out the full history, which is that the bulk of the articles were created in 2003 with the year in the name; the more recent ones were being created in a mixed fashion with some using the year, and some using the number. In January 2010 all the articles were changed to number titles for reasons of consistency. By this time the supporting structure for the articles was already based on using the years, and that was never changed. So the use of numbers in the article titles is more recent, appears never to have been discussed, and does not fit in with the structure or use around Wikipedia. My change of article titles was done after leaving a message on the related WikiProject talkpage and getting no response after a week. I saw the moves as fully compliant with policy, as restoring the articles to how they had been, as fitting in with existing structure and usage, and as being done after notifying people that I was thinking of doing so. In the circumstances I felt the moves were uncontroversial, and the advice has long been: "Making an uncontroversial move – if you can, do it yourself!". SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The way it is now is much more reader and user friendly. Jusdafax 04:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Like I said before, years could provide confusion to the readers. Using the year in which they were held does provide confusion. They might think that for example: The 2012 Grammy Awards honor music achievements made in 2012. While the truth is every Grammys take nominations in a certain time period, example: Oct. 1, 2010 to Sept. 30, 2011 is the eligibility period for 54th Grammy Awards. Another good example is the 2nd Grammy Awards. These awards were held in November 29, 1959 and it honored the musical achievements of the same year. How was it possible to name it 1960 Grammy Awards. It was never held in 1960 nor it honored 1960 musical achievements. How do you suppose to do that? In 1959, two Grammy award ceremonies were held, one in May to honor 1958 achievements and the other one was this one. There were no Grammys held in 1960. So, that's why a major move occurred before, from year form to "nth" form. Janbryan (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So leave 1st and 2nd at 1st and 2nd. The rest are reasonably unambiguous using the year. Besides, there is always a re-direct from the actual name. Apteva (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it looks a little odd, but the 1960 Grammy Awards are called that - it's not something any editor at Wikipedia has made up. See The Guardian article on Sinatra. I also agree that there could be some confusion between the year of the award and the year of the ceremony, but that's already built into the system as that is how the articles are categorised, and referred to by sources. It appears to be widely accepted that the year of the ceremony is how the awards are referred to, though there may be exceptions. I'm not sure how naming the articles after the number will aid people in knowing which year is being referred to. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For administrative reasons, just clarifying that the nomination was done on behalf of Janbryan, so currently there is only one support, not two. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:54th_Annual_Grammy_Awards&oldid=1197063186"