Talk:List of accolades received by Carol (film)

Secondary coverage

Cowlibob, I meant that they are cited to secondary sources, as article content generally should be; Hollywood Music in Media Awards: The Hollywood Reporter, Indiana Film Journalists Association: Journal & Courier, North Carolina Film Critics Association: The News & Observer. I haven't search for more coverage on the Hollywood Music in Media Awards, but the Indiana Film Journalists Association and Southeastern Film Critics Association do have more: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]; ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Red linking isn't necessary; articles won't necessarily be created or necessarily should created. They might not meet certain notability criteria for warranting an article. Lapadite (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I thought that we have had multiple discussions related to this on WP:FILM and that the consensus was that we would only include awards from notable organisations hence the redlinking, if articles won't necessarily be created for these organisations in the future then we have to question their inclusion in the list. Cowlibob (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I know there's been multiple, messy discussion about indiscriminate lists of awards, I created the last one. I'm referring to the "discriminate" inclusion of awards that have received secondary coverage (cited to secondary sources). There are tons of "non-notable" awards that aren't included here, that I removed myself because they don't have media coverage. Lapadite (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Changing citations after-the-fact

I've noticed that several cited sources have been changed after an award has been announced. This kind of after-the-fact revising is affecting the reference record and primary source values of the article. A source that lists all the nominations should not be substituted with one that only announces the winner in one or more categories. How are future readers going to know the complete facts of nominations? Instead of erasing original citations and substituting them with "updated" citations, why not leave them in place? It poses no harm to the article to do so, but altering cited sources does do harm to the information available in the future after the updating of accolades has run its course. BTW, I also found at least one URL that had expired and the webpage is no longer available. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I made sure the noms and wins remained appropriately cited. For the Austin Film Critics Association and Houston Film Critics Society, there are two citations - for the nominations and the winners - because reports on the winners don't mention the nominations. Lapadite (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying you were the one doing it, but here's an example:

the inclusion of six nominations under Alliance of Women Film Journalists (Best Film, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, Best Film Music or Score, Best Woman Screenwriter) is not supported by the citation. The citation now only links to the Winners sans nominees. The nominations appear in the original announcement only: http://awfj.org/eda-awards-2/2015-eda-award-nominees/ Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Cited the nominations. Lapadite (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Accolades on this page

I removed the list of accolades on this talk page, since Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc. apply to talk pages as well as to article pages, and that list violated Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Accolades. Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page because they aren't permitted in the article itself is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop inventing guidelines and policies. There is NOTHING in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades that deals with the Talk page. There is nothing in WP:TALK#FACTS that supports your assertion that a list in the TALK PAGE violates any WP policy. The rules that govern editing articles are not the same rules that govern Talk pages. All you are is a bully who wants to rule over the contributions of other Wikipedia editors. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which says: 1) "The purpose of an article's talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." Posting disallowed content is not discussion about improving the article. Secondly, "it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." Policy is that we follow consensus, in this case that of WP:FILM. I will also ask you refrain from personal attacks and name-calling, as those are violations of WP:CIVIL. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Posting disallowed content". Disallowed where? Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines does not address posting a list in the Talk page. WP:FILM does not include the posting of a list in a Talk page. If it's not specifically written in a policy or guideline, if it cannot be specifically found anywhere ... it's your interpretation only. Again you are inventing policies and guidelines THAT DO NOT EXIST in Wikipedia. You're lying. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

First, enough with the abusive language. Second, please read what I wrote. The guidelines are clear: Talk pages are solely for discussion of how to improve the article. Anything that is not discussion — such as copy-pasting a list containing things disallowed by WP:FILM — does not go on the page. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

"such as copy-pasting a list containing things disallowed by WP:FILM". You're inventing policies/guidelines again. #1: There is nothing in WP:FILM that says a list cannot be created in the Talk page. #2: The list was not copy-pasted. The list was manually created to keep track of all the awards and nominations. Why? Because it's the only way to confirm the total of awards and nominations received by the film (otherwise, it cannot be corroborated and if it cannot be corroborated it is unreliable, and possibly false, information). And that is how you improve an article about a film that has received numerous awards and nominations. Because years from now when articles on the web cannot be accessed or found to confirm a particular award and/or nomination which is not Academy Awards, British Academy, Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild, etc. -- what researchers, students, and the general public will get from Wikipedia are unsubstantiated allegations. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No. You cannot take material that is disallowed in the article and say, "Oh! I'll just get around the rules by putting all that disallowed material on the talk page." Wikipedia does not work that way. If it did, than anyone could put anything they wanted to on a talk page that was removed from an article for violating policy/guidelines/MOS. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"You cannot take material that is disallowed in the article". Point to EXACTLY where it states in the article that a list cannot be posted in the Talk page and link to the EXACT section where this is found. Otherwise, you are inventing policy and guidelines. If you cannot provide evidence that Wikipedia SPECIFICALLY states that a list cannot be posted in the Talk page: this matter goes to the attention of Admins and THEY will make the final decision. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Not going to happen, because your Wikilawyering demand is irrelevant for a few reasons:

1. Wikipedia is not a rules-limited bureaucracy: Wikipedia has the Five Pillars, but all the rules and guidelines evolved descriptively from those; i.e., the rules and guidelines describe what editors do on Wikipedia, not holy writ handed down from a higher authority.
2. Wikipedia works by consensus. See above. All the hair-splitting and demands for literal instructions mean nothing, since what is — or, more specifically, isn’t — included anywhere is decided by consensus, not obedience to some external rule. Treating a Wikipedia as a court of law, where if you make exactly the right combination of magic rhetoric you can win, is not how it works.
3. Actual practice: it’s long-standing, well-known — as in, “the-sky-is-blue” well-known — practice, as stated in WP:TALK, that article talk pages are for improving the article, not for other purposes. It’s also long practice that material that doesn’t belong in articles doesn’t get to make a permanent end-run around that fact with long-term storage. Off-topic, inappropriate, and trivial material gets deleted all the time. Hell, look at WP:MFD.
4. No actual point: that list you want permanently enshrined on the Talk page isn’t ever going into the article as a whole, so there’s no point in keeping it around. If there are individual entries, bring them up — you know, the point of a Talk page — but if you want the entire list kept, you’ve got a computer with a hard drive: use that.
5. Finally, from all of your argumentation -- especially your denigration of the third opinion you asked for -- it’s pretty clear that whatever policy or guideline text is offered up, you will dispute it, re-interpret it to fit your conclusions, or otherwise claim it doesn't apply for some reason or another, so there’s no point in posting anything, really.

Bottom line: nobody died and left you in charge, banging on about rules is irrelevant, and if you can't actually persuade anyone, them's the breaks. --Calton | Talk 09:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

1. That third opinion was not based on what is actually contained word-for-word in MOS:FILM. I don't reply to discussions about a subject for which I have scant (or no) familiarity.

2. "Bottom line: nobody died and left you in charge". LOL! Hi, pot ... meet kettle. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for neutral opinion has been posted in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. User:Tenebrae has been notified. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Gushy tone and other vios

I know some editors love this film, and we still cannot disregard Wikipedia MOS and WikiProject Film guidelines. We need to keep a neutral, encyclopedic tone and not use hyperbolic puffery. The film is good enough to stand on its own merits and accolades without us gilding the lily. In particular, WikIProject Film guidelines specifically disallow top-10 lists, and I have adjusted this article accordingly. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades states:

• "Accolades include...presence on lists of critically acclaimed films."

Where it states "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears": this refers to the inclusion of top-ten lists in the accolades table. It does not mean you cannot include the information in the article's narrative of accolades.

I request input from other WP editors and if there is no response to this request, I request that the mass deletion of content be brought to dispute resolution @ Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests before User:Tenebrae makes another edit to this article. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again, you deliberately misread WP:FILM guidelines to suit your agenda. You're a huge fan of the film. We understand. But that doesn't mean you can flout guidelines. Accolades do not include top-ten lists. Continuing to insert that is disrupting Wikipedia and that will lead to admin intervention. If you want a top-ten list in the article, you have to reach consensus on the talk page, as the guideline clearly states. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"If you want a top-ten list in the article, you have to reach consensus on the talk page, as the guideline clearly states." Consensus was reached when every editor until you accepted the mention of "top-ten" lists in the narrative about accolades. It is your interpretation that mention of such cannot be made nor alluded to. YOU are the one that needs to solicit consensus regarding this matter. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"I would also warn against canvassing or tag-teaming, as your edit here suggests you may be doing. This would also be part of any dispute resolution or admin intervention. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"I would also warn against canvassing or tag-teaming". Your suspicions and assumptions are unfounded and if the third-party wants to comment about what I wrote, she is free to do so. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Although it's the first thing I thought, I didn't say it. However, after giving it some consideration, I've changed my mind and will say it: what you accomplished here is provide evidence of stalking. You went out of your way to follow my actions on Wikipedia. A stalker by any other name is still a stalker. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between the addition of top-ten lists to the table of accolades ... and the mention of "130 top-ten lists" in the narrative about accolades. A request for neutral opinion has been made. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The guideline states: "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." I don't know how that could be clearer. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(1): Providing information in narrative regarding a film being included in "top-ten" lists is not the same as adding a list of "top-ten" in the accolades. I don't know how that could be any clearer.

(2): You did not seek consensus before deleting long-existing content. Consensus is not a cya afterthought. I don't know how that could be made any clearer. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reinserted AFI top-ten

A later discussion at FILM MOS agreed to allow prose mention of the AFI top-ten list (not the nominees, and only in prose). I have reinserted that sentence. It remains that no mentions of other top-ten lists are allowed without format talk-page consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There is NO discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film (Talk page for MOS:FILM) regarding AFI top-ten list. In the History of the Talk page -- going as far back as "16 February 2010‎‎" -- there is NO summary that even mentions AFI. If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Here: [12]. You know, I'm really getting tired of your abusivness and name calling. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If such a discussion existed you would have automatically linked to it, instead of referring to "FILM MOS".

All you have to do is page search the term "top ten" in [13] and ... no mention of "top ten" lists.

All you have to do is page search the word "prose" [14] and ... no mention of an agreement to "allow prose mention of the AFI top-ten list".

And just to double-check the search, I cut/pasted the discussion to notebook and did a find search of "top ten", "top", "ten", "prose" and ... no discussion agreeing to "allow prose mention of the AFI top-ten lists".

What kind of 'take-my-word-for-it' idiots do you think Wikipedia editors are? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again, your abusive language and hostility are about to go too far. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film reads (emphasis added): "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus. With a film largely overlooked for awards, a prose summary of it appearing on such lists may be appropriate; likewise with films nominated for awards yet appearing on few such lists." The AFI exception that was then added does not suddenly negate every other thing in this guideline. How much clearer can I make it? Top-ten lists where appropriate, including the AFI's, go in prose. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

And incidentally, just because you're incapable of properly searching the archives doesn't mean everyone is lying to you. There are top-ten-list discussions going back to 2012 and at least three places:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_41#Removal_of_Top_10_lists_from_articles
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_60#Top_10_lists
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_12#.22Do_not_add_critics.27_top-ten_lists_on_which_a_film_appears.2C_except_on_a_case-by-case_basis_subject_to_consensus..22. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You need to re-read those discussions. Because (a) there was no "top ten" list in the Carol accolades article -- only the information that the film was included in 130 top ten lists; (b) in those archived discussions there are pro and con arguments about top ten lists, but what is not found discussed is the mention in the accolades narrative that a film was included in X top ten lists. You are not the only Wikipedia editor and you are not the decider on this matter. I've requested neutral input. Stop chiseling away at the article until it then. It's not MY article. And it's not YOUR article, either. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I know those discussions; I was in some of them. WP:FILM consensus is not to have a million — or in this case 130 — top-ten lists mentioned, including with a possible 130 footnotes. Read the guidelines: "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." If you want to call an RfC to gather consensus on adding all that clutter to this article, be my guest; this is the page to do it on.

And incidentally, I re-added the AFI list when the AFI exception was pointed out to me. Re-adding is the opposite of "chiseling away." And may I ask why you think it's proper or civilized behavior to speak as uncivily as you do? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You really need to stop making reckless edits. You not only deleted mention of AFI in the prose and in the Table, but when you reinstated the prose you added a citation for 2016 films. You need to stop your careless, disruptive editing of this article. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

And at least two other editors besides myself have commented on your incivility. When enough people do so, perhaps you should consider the possibility that they maybe a legitimate point. I would also mention that admins take a dim view of editors who cry WP:DISRUPT when that is clearly not the case --Tenebrae (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm responding to a request on Wikipedia:Third opinion. After looking at the recent edits in this article, and reading the conversation, I agree that inserting references to numerous top-10 lists is inappropriate and a violation of MOS:FILM. I wouldn't have any objection to mentioning one or two of the more notable lists such as the American Film Institute, but a laundry list of them is over the top, and the fact that it appeared in 130 such lists is irrelevant (and it strains credulity to accept that all those lists are equally important; most are probably not notable at all, so they don't matter and need not be mentioned). Furthermore, the WP:BURDEN is on the editor who wants to add content to support the addition, and in the somewhat uncivil conversation above, I am unconvinced that the burden has been met. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: you consider the sentence "It was named one of the best films of 2015 by numerous critics and publications, appearing in over 130 Top Ten lists." as irrelevant. And this sentence constitutes including an actual top-ten films list in the article.

"it strains credulity to accept that all those lists are equally important; most are probably not notable at all." So, Film Comment magazine (Film Society of Lincoln Center), Sight & Sound magazine (British Film Institute), Variety, IndieWire, The Village Voice, and The Guardian newspaper are "probably not notable at all"?

Do you know anything about the film industry and what publications and associations are considered "notable"?

Who else is responding to the third opinion request? Because someone who has zero or minimal familiarity with the film industry should stay out of this convo.

Civility is overrated. Either something is right or it is wrong. That's it. Period. You don't have to bow and kiss to decide the validity of black vs. white. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so if civility is overrated, you won't mind the suggestion that you have imagined assertions that weren't stated?

Please re-read the opinion. The fact that there are 130 top ten lists mentioning this film is indeed irrelevant. Where, exactly, in my opinion did I single out specific lists as being irrelevant? Where did I say that the handful of sources you cited aren't notable? Where is that number 130 even supported by any single citation? Did you engage in original research to come up with that number? And yes, it does indeed strain credulity that all 130 are equally important or even notable. Bottom line, it isn't worth mentioning.

If you want additional opinions, then start an RFC. I advise you to avoid presuming to know the level of expertise of other editors, particularly regarding the relative importance of sources in the context of applying Wikipedia guidelines. For the record, in my career as a project manager, I have professional experience at a streaming media company with major film industry partners, directly involving decisions about what information from film critics should be displayed in a streaming media application to be integrated in a next-generation smart TV for a major TV manufacturer, so yes I believe I know something about the subject. What are your credentials? ~Anachronist (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

What are your credentials? It's not my nature to crow about my credentials. But it's easy to find out if you read my profile page. But since you didn't seem to have done so, I'll explain it to you: City College of New York's Film & Video Program. Graduate studies at NYU's School of the Arts. Entertainment ghost writer for newspapers and magazines. Film editor. Television newswriter and producer. A nice circle of friends chockful of independent film directors and producers. Cock-a-doodle-doo!

"The fact that there are 130 top ten lists mentioning this film is indeed irrelevant." No, it isn't. Some films don't even make one list. When you have a film that has been included in over 130 top ten lists, that's important information about it.

"Where, exactly, in my opinion did I single out specific lists as being irrelevant?" Single out? No. Generalized? Yes. You threw the baby out with the bathwater. (I assume you didn't bother to look at the referenced citations that were used to make the information a legitimate statement.) The main article used to have a top-ten lists section, but it was deleted on "9 February 2016" per Wikipedia guidelines. (See: Top ten lists)

Civility is only worth observing when you are dealing with editors who show respect for a Wikipedia article and all the editors that contributed to its creation ... and that includes its Talk page. But when you have arrogant editors who think they know more than anyone else -- stomp on an article because they give themselves an egotistical license to do whatever they want to it, and dismiss the concerns of other editors to being a fan of the film the article is about -- they don't deserve to be treated with civility. Mind you ... calling someone a bully is better than calling them a dickhead (even if the vulgarity is more suitable to the occasion).

But, I do thank you for responding to the request for opinion. You didn't have to. A lot of editors don't. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, we're all anonymous here and there's no way to verify who people claim to be, so talk of credentials is irrelevant. If I felt like violating my anonymity, I could throw credentials as a journalist and author that would be more impressive, unless you've published several books.

Second, WP:FILM editors reached consensus on not having top-10 lists precisely because they were bloating articles and gilding the lily in exactly the way you espouse. Wikipedia only works if we reach and then respect consensus. If you'd like to go to the FILMMOS talk page and start an RfC on allowing top-10 lists back in, you, like any other editor, are free to do so.

Finally, civility with other editors is actually a behavioral guideline of Wikipedia's, so your name-calling and false characterizations go against WP:CIVIL. You don't have to like that guideline or agree with it, but we're all expected to abide by it. I haven't called you names. I question what kind of person that enjoys name-calling. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you know anything about the film industry and what publications and associations are considered "notable"? Since this is in response to "it strains credulity to accept that all [emphasis added] those lists are equally important", I'd say you're having some trouble with the meaning of the word "all". --Calton | Talk 09:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You forgot the rest of it: "; most are probably not notable at all."

Tell us, grasshopper ... what does the pronoun "all" mean to you? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't know? That's actually pretty obvious, since your response to the statement about whether ALL the lists are notable was to cherry-pick only ones that were. So, oh-legal-genius, what was the point of that, other than your usual dishonest rhetoric? --Calton | Talk 03:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

"cherry-pick". "your usual dishonest rhetoric". Try as you might to hide it, words and language usage expose you. You're not a smart sockpuppet, are you? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't insult another editor like you did with Calton, by launching what I'm certain is a baseless accusation against a 12-year Wikiipedia veteran. Your incivility is becoming increasingly untenable. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC

A request for comment regarding what is or is not a top ten "list" has been submitted in WikiProject Film: RfC re "Top ten" vs. "Top ten list" in Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (film). Pyxis Solitary (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Top 10

WP:FILMMOS is clear: "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." The African-American, Dallas and New York critics' top-10 lists violate MOS and need to be removed.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)