Talk:List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards

Background info

The Background info should stay. It was reviewed in a peer review, and then reviewed again for WP:FL featured list status, for the page 29th Golden Raspberry Awards. It helps to provide background and context about the event. The article should be able to function as a stand-alone page about the subject. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought that featured lists usually had shorter intros (agree about some kind of intro, of course). I do think the extensive word-for-word duplication of many paragraphs between Golden Raspberry Award and this list is a problem, as many people will read both. I have looked at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/29th Golden Raspberry Awards/archive1 and [1] and what I see there is a shorter introduction (which is more focused on the 29th awards rather than the awards in general). I also don't see a WP:FL review for this list; can you supply a link if there has been one? Kingdon (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This list has not yet been through that process. I was waiting until the awards ceremony from this year. As long as the intro stays able to function as a stand-alone summary of the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD, I would not be averse to working out some sort of trimming of it, perhaps slightly. :) Cirt (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Section blanking of sourced info by user Yaksar

[2] followed by [3] = disruptive and not constructive. Please stop. This is sourced info and relevant background info, that should remain in this article. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That section is taken verbatim from the main article, it should not be here as well. Yaksar (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion requested regarding removals

• Yaksar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. sourced info removed with no edit summary
2. sourced info removed with no talk page discussion
3. sourced info removed, again, with no edit summary

Three times now, this user has removed a significant amount of sourced material from this article's page - indeed, the user blanked out an entire sourced subsection. This is inappropriate. The info should be restored. It is relevant, noteworthy, and sourced to multiple WP:RS secondary sources. It is a relatively small amount of Background info, which helps to ground the reader in the subject matter. Take for example, the Featured List page on the same subject, 29th Golden Raspberry Awards, which also provides background info. Will request third opinion for first step in dispute resolution here. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This article already has a substantial informative introduction. The section I deleted simply repeats much of the same material and is taken verbatim from the main article on the awards, which (I think?) is content forking (although I could easily be wrong about that one). There's no need for the entire history of the awards on this page, any more than the page for Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor should include an entire history of the oscars. Thank you. Yaksar (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the sourced main article itself, after I had added it to the Featured List article. It is not the "entire history", merely a few sentences of background info. Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor should include a brief background grounding for the reader and history, so that the article is able to function as a stand-alone-piece about what that subject matter is. -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Taken verbatim from WP:LSC: "Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected." This section that is getting removed is summarizing the background information on the Golden Raspberry Award. This is also not improper content forking because this falls under the section on related articles. Golden Raspberry Award is on the Golden Raspberry Award itself, whereas this article is on the people who have accepted it. The content forking guideline states that related articles will have a lot of material in common.—Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Reaper Eternal, for providing this most informative and educational third opinion response. It is most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But the page already has the necessary background information in the intro. The contested section is basically redundant and gives more info than needed about the awards themselves, and says nothing about those who have personally accepted it. Yaksar (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In a 4th edit, Yaksar (talk · contribs) has removed even more info two entire paragraphs from the lede [4], with edit summary of "already written below", seemingly failing to notice that is the very nature of WP:LEAD - to summarize the entire article's contents. -- Cirt (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What I removed was not a summary of the contents below, it was the exact same info but with a few less details. The article is now basically the same points rehashed a few times, and contains multiple redundancies. Yaksar (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Per WP:LEAD, the lede/intro of the article should be able to function as a stand-alone separate summary of the entire article's contents. This article does that. -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

So let's work on trimming it down then? It shouldn't really say anything beyond a brief summary of what the awards are, and maybe a few sentences on people personally accepting it. As of now, it is far too bulky. Yaksar (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, WP:LEAD and WP:LSC note that leads should summarize the article and that a section of a standalone list should give background information. See Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814, a featured list, for another example of this type of duplication. Also, I do not know of any policy which states that background information should consist of a few sentences. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that certain information is repeated and should be deleted? There's no reason that a description of the statuette should be there twice, for example (or at all really. You don't see a description of the oscar statue in the list of best director winners.) Yaksar (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is my most recent change ok at least? I assume it is not a controversial change, but if so I can change it back. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to move this article so it does not use "List of"? It does not appear to count as a list article, since a list is supposed to follow the lead section. Here, the list follows the lead section and nearly 2,000 additional words of prose. It would be worth re-defining the scope of this particular topic to accommodate the text. It reminds me more of a film article with a list of awards toward the end. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with this suggestion - but what would be the proposed new title for the page? -- Cirt (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What about "Acceptance of the Golden Raspberry Awards", "Recipients of the Golden Raspberry Award", or "Recipience of the Golden Raspberry Award"? Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Yaksar is right, this list needs to be pared right down. This article give lots of background and historical information which should really be included at Golden Raspberry Award, not on the list of recipients. In fact, large chunks of this article are copied verbatim from the main Golden Raspberry article so it is redundant to repeat it again. This list should ideally be written in such a way it could be a sub-section of the Golden Raspberry Award article. Betty Logan (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Having a closer look, I think the text of this article can be fully integrated into Golden Raspberry Award, which is quite a short article. The Background section in this article is pretty much copied verbatim from Golden Raspberry Award so that is covered. The whole of the "History" section in this article could be moved over to the Golden Raspberry Award as a whole new section ("Acceptance of the Razzie" or something along those lines). That would mean all of the textual description on this article could be ditched, and it could be retained as just a basic list. Without the text, there would be no need for such an extensive lede, so you could retain the first two sentences and ditch the rest. That leaves you with just the one textual article at Golden Raspberry Award outlining the origins and background of the event, along with acceptance of the award by the nominees, and a basic list article. I really don't think there is any need to have two separate "text" articles about the razzies since I think all aspects of the award can be adequately covered by just the one article plus a basic list article. Betty Logan (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)z

That makes a lot of sense. The text in this covers much more than the list itself as of now. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Oppose merging this article into the Golden Raspberry Award article. Strongly oppose that. If you want to go work on Golden Raspberry Award, go do that. Do not go around making silly proposals to do away with entire articles without even having an actual "Merge" discussion or WP:AFD discussion. Wholesale doing away with articles that have lots of sourcing and took a significant amount of effort to create from scratch, is inappropriate and extremely discouraging. -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done, moved page title to Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards by recipients, per above suggestions by Erik (talk · contribs) and Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs). Many thanks, great suggestion. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

To help improve this article, I'm going to add a cleanup tag to attract attention to it. Hopefully other editors can help to improve it. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No explanation given for disruptive "cleanup" tag action. Removed it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• [5] = "cleanup" tag disruptively added back by Yaksar (talk · contribs), again with zero explanation as to why. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this tag, as all issues outstanding have since been addressed. Hopefully this is all  Done now, to the satisfaction of Yaksar (talk · contribs), and without further complaints. -- Cirt (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm cool with it. --Yaksar (let's chat) 16:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Finally. That is most appreciated. It was a bit of effort. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate Sentences

I'm going to start working on cleaning up duplicate sentences, since as of now the article has multiple repeats. Any help or input is appreciated. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that is in the article as per WP:LEAD. Please, leave it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of sourced info

Is the recent removal of sourced info from this article page appropriate? 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Please keep comments within your own subsection, and do not intersperse and engage in threaded comments, for ease of organization. Thank you. 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comments by Cirt

Brief summary

• Recent removal of sourced info from this article page by Yaksar (talk · contribs) is inappropriate.
• The respondent from the Third Opinion process agreed with this assessment.
• Yaksar has engaged in a pattern of disruption at this page, which resulted in a warning at WP:AN3: "User is warned that any further removals before discussion is finished will result in a block."
• Despite this warning, Yaksar has continued to remove sourced info from this page, before discussion is finished.

Chronology of disruption by Yaksar

1. 05:23, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "") - No edit summary used. Constitutes vandalism = page blanking with zero edit summary. Yaksar removed entire sourced subsection from page, with zero explanation.
2. 20:26, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "this information is already in the main article, should not be here")
3. 17:43, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 407862202 by Cirt (talk)")
4. 18:19, 14 January 2011 - From Third Opinion process, respondent Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) weighs in that removals by Yaksar are inappropriate.
5. 18:35, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "already written below")
6. 18:49, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "intro is far too long and is more than a summary (note: this is only my second reversion)")
7. 19:24, 14 January 2011 - The Third Opinion process respondent, Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs), again clarifies that the Background sourced info is appropriate to retain in the article.
8. 20:05, 14 January 2011 - Yaksar receives warning at WP:AN3: "User is warned that any further removals before discussion is finished will result in a block."
9. 21:59, 14 January 2011 - Yaksar violates warning from WP:AN3, removing sourced info from the article before discussion has finished on the talk page.
10. 22:39, 14 January 2011 - Yaksar removes same info, again.
11. 08:35, 15 January 2011 - Yaksar tags the article page with "cleanup" tag - with zero edit summary, and no explanation.
12. 20:05, 16 January 2011 - Yaksar yet again removes info from the article, from the WP:LEAD section, and again adds back "cleanup" tag, with no explanation.

---

Sourced info should not be removed

The information on the page is appropriately sourced and the Background section grounds the reader within the topic before proceeding on to a more specific discussion of the history. Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) correctly cited multiple policies which support retaining this material. Yaksar (talk · contribs) should cease removing sourced material from this page, abide by the warning he received at WP:AN3, and defer to talk page discussion and the opinion provided by the Third Opinion respondent, Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Yaksar

So, since the first dispute all I've done is delete a single sentence that is repeated twice in the article (on the price of the award). The moderator involved int he original dispute even said this edit was not disruptive. Cirt seems to be unwilling to let an article with obvious faults be cleaned up. I couldn't care less if I'm involved, but I'd like to see this article improved. Cirt seems to be hiding behind certain parts of rules (and indeed has been using some of these rules incorrectly) in an effort to prevent change, which clearly goes against the spirit of the encyclopedia. But if this draws attention to the article and brings editors willing to help improve it, I guess I'm cool with it. Also, I did add explanation for the cleanup tag, both on the talk page the before the first time and in my edit summary for the second. I'm not sure why Cirt insists I didn't. Also, since Cirt did not note it above, I'd like to point out that a second (?) third respondent also gave input, stating that the article should be trimmed down. I'd also like to highlight Cirt's complaint to the moderator of the dispute requesting a ban, which was denied because my edit was deemed as "not disruptive. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Reaper Eternal

It appears to me that we are judging this article based on Golden Raspberry Award, and thus claiming that this article is too large. However, my opinion is that Golden Raspberry Award needs to be expanded to include all the available information, since this article is of far better quality. We should not judge an article nearing FL-quality by an article at C or start quality. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Betty Logan

I do not think that a merge is necessary since none of the four criteria are met: 1) The articles are not duplicates, 2) It is not violating WP:DICDEF, 3) Neither article is short, and 4) This list provides sufficient context, which appears to be the whole complaint about this article—that it provides background information for context! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Betty Logan

While I share your concerns about this article Yaksar, further edits/removal of content could be considered unconstructive, and an admin they be forced to block you if he believes you will keep editing without a consensus. I believe the overlap between this article and Golden Raspberry Awards warrants a merge along the lines of my suggestion above. If you agree with that, I think the next step would be for you to nominate the articles for merging by following the instructions at Help:Merging. Even if a full merge isn't accepted, the review process may reach a consensus on how the content is distributed between the two articles, which is the fundamental problem here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editors

Comments by Sjones23

While I have never been involved in this content dispute, I agree with the concerns by Cirt and Reaper Eternal. Removing well-sourced material is disruptive, unless poorly-sourced material will be removed without disruption. Further removal of well-sourced content as well as unsourced content would cause a violation of 3RR, which I am fully aware of. That list also provides sufficient background information as well. As such, I believe that the well-sourced material which was repeatedly removed should stay in this article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright

So let's try doing this one small step at a time. The intro paragraph and the "background" section seem to say the exact same thing. Can we at least fix the article so this is not the case? Yaksar (let's chat) 23:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Please read WP:LEAD. Per WP:LEAD, the lede/intro should be able to function as a stand-alone summary of the entire article's contents. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does not give an excuse for duplicate sentences; that is a rule for basic writing itself. It also does explicitly say to avoid redundant information. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but that is an argument to slightly trim down the size of the lede/intro, not to trim down info from the body text of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That works fine for me, I've got no desire to remove sourced info, just the sentences that are in there twice. The intro, for example, doesn't need to go into detail or even mention most recipients, it just has to briefly summarize the awards and explain that certain people have accepted them, which can be expanded upon below.Yaksar (let's chat) 19:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, the intro should indeed mention some of the noteworthy recipients, as that is the entire subject matter of the article itself. -- Cirt (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, but we really don't want to go into any real detail until the bulk of the article. A lead standing alone does not mean it says all of the information in a simpler way. For example, we could mention that Bill Cosby was the first, but we don't want to describe each winner, especially since, when there's so few, all are somewhat memorable.Yaksar (let's chat) 20:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed down the size of the lede/intro sect. -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good start, but we still need some work. Basically, every sentence should be teaching the reader something new, they shouldn't have to read through the same stuff. Tom Green playing the harmonica for example. Also, we don't really need so much info about the first razzie awards. I don't want to remove sourced information, believe me. But this article should essentially boil down the awards to its very basics, so that someone who just read the entry on the Razzies could read this one too. A great example is EGOT. It doesn't cover too much about the respective awards, just enough to give the reader a sense of what the article is about. But I'm glad we're making progress!Yaksar (let's chat) 20:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, would you be against moving most of the info into the list itself? That way, no sourced info would be removed, there would not be duplicate info, and there'd be no talk of merging this article into anything else. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be strongly opposed to moving most of this info into the list itself. I will try to continue to trim down the lede/intro, hopefully to your satisfaction. -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have trimmed down the size of the lede/intro sect, again. Hopefully this is now to the satisfaction of Yaksar (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Just realize that, as of now, the entire article for the awards themselves is included in this article (under background). You must agree with me that this is a bit too much. This article should be a supplement to the article on the awards themselves, not a repeat of it.Yaksar (let's chat) 20:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That is actually an argument to expand the article on the main subject, not to delete info from the article on this subject. -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but it is indicative of this one saying a bit too much. Look at the other articles concerning the razzies (most of which I believe you played a hand in.) They briefly touch upon the concept of the razzies, but allow the reader to click to the main article if they'd like to learn the history of them. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have edited a few other pages on this topic, but not to the extent of quality and sourcing as this one. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So I decided to try something out to clean the article without removing any sourced info but getting rid of duplicates, obviously some formatting is needed but I'd like you to have a look at it at User:Yaksar/draftYaksar (let's chat) 21:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, what would be the consensus for moving the huge history section into Golden Raspberry Award? Then that page would be expanded and this article would go back to being a list. We could then summarize the history in the lead of the list. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose to that, especially in light of comments by Erik (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support, that way this article could have the info in the list and not repeat it multiple times. Erik's comment pointed out this shouldn't be a list if there's so much text, moving this text could allow for this to be a list again. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Support – That's pretty much along the lines of my suggestion in the first RFC above. I don't see any need to document the history of the award/ceremony in this article. The Golden Raspberry Award is the proper place to document the history of the award, this article only needs to document the recipients. It would resolve the unnecessary overlap between the two articles. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Yaksar/draft would also provide a reasonable alternative to this though, since it keeps all the information in history but adds it to the list, allowing for the article to be a list again and resolving most of Erik's objections. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, okay, okay - bear with me and I will try to make some adjustments that hopefully will satisfy everyone, above. -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay.  Done. See diff. Better? Satisfied yet? :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I do think that this edit substantially improved the article. However, I do still feel we need to address Betty Logan's concerns, specifically in regards to "I don't see any need to document the history of the award/ceremony in this article. The Golden Raspberry Award is the proper place to document the history of the award, this article only needs to document the recipients." But this is great progress. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is our consensus that we want to work to make this article acceptable as a list again? It seems to make more sense to me as a list than an article, given the subject. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem to be the case. I will move it back to its original title, if there are no objections to doing so. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming we're still willing to work on improving it, that's fine with me, but I'd wait for consensus from some of the others involved.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright. -- Cirt (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My main worry is that there's too much written before the list starts. A list article should be an intro that describes the criteria to be on the list, and then the list itself, not all this other information. --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the first two paragraphs in the "Background" section are irrelevant to the topic at hand, and are already covered on the article about the award. The subject is acceptance of the Golden Raspberry, not the Golden Raspberry itself. The background here isn't the genesis and history of the award, it's the background to people accepting them i.e. the first people to attend/be invited/the first winner/the most prolific winner and nominee/notable attendances etc. Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Given the relative shortness of the article, I think all we need is "Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards by recipients has changed over time as the awards process has gained more prominence. The Golden Raspberry Awards, known as the Razzies, is an awards ceremony to recognize the worst in American film. As a result, few of the winners of the awards actually accept them. According to current Razzies tradition the ceremony itself precedes the corresponding Academy Award function by one day." And then the list itself. --Yaksar (let's chat) 18:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've done a sandbox version at Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards by recipients/Sandbox. I think that's the perspective, tone and level of detail we should strive for. It doesn't have to be exactly like that, but I think that's the general framework the article should adopt. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd feel it would be better if that entire background section was removed. The first paragraph basically says the same thing as the intro, the second is an unnecessary level of detail for this satellite article, and the third just says what's in the list below with less detail and a less clear format. --Yaksar (let's chat) 20:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Have we agreed to trim down the info in the article to just a brief description and then the list so that it can become a list again? As an example of a featured list of a similar nature, I'd like to present List of Czech submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. The intro contains exactly 2 sentences about the history of that particular award, and nothing about the history of the Academy Awards themselves (for that, the reader would read the main page). All other background info concerns either the criteria to be on the list or a brief summary of the most significant entries, specifically the ones that have actually been nominated. Yaksar (let's chat) 14:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I have trimmed down the info in the article to just a brief description. I have removed the Background sect. I have sourced the info, from the previous and now removed Background sect, directly into the lede/intro itself. Is everyone satisfied now? Please? -- Cirt (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel that we need to keep that second paragraph in? It just seems like an unsourced version of what's in the list, and doesn't particularly highlight the important or stand-out entries (indeed, on a list this short, basically each entry stands out). Other than that, this seems like featured article material. Yaksar (let's chat) 14:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEAD, regarding sourcing in the lede. -- Cirt (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, but regardless of sourcing, the point still stands about it just looking and being out of place given that it is a right above the list and seems superfluous. Yaksar (let's chat) 15:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Leaving in just Cosby and Paul Verhoeven would make more sense though, given that they are the actual firsts and have a reason to be highlighted in the intro. Yaksar (let's chat) 15:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but all lists are supposed to have a lead section. Actually, the lead might need a little expansion now. We do not need any more content removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs). Also, it is interesting that an award was presented on Larry King Live, and that another attendant came bearing her Academy Award in one hand as well. Both are noteworthy events and deserve remaining in the lede/intro. -- Cirt (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

This edit [6] by Yaksar (talk · contribs) is inappropriate. Please see sect WP:MOSBEGIN of page WP:LEAD. It links to List of environmental issues, which uses the exact same format. Please, do not remove it again. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

From the page you showed: "If the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs...". (See Format of the first sentence below)." Yaksar (let's chat) 16:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is a list. Therefore it should be introduced this way. Again, this is exactly as given in the example cited by WP:MOSBEGIN. -- Cirt (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That article specifically states the sentence I quoted above, which explicitly states that this article should not begin as it does. Yaksar (let's chat) 16:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have changed it back. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. --Yaksar (let's chat) 16:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards by recipients/Sandbox

Should this be deleted now? --Yaksar (let's chat) 16:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. You can place {{Db-u1}} at the top of the page. -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

"Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards by recipients has changed over time as the awards process has gained more prominence." sounds stilted and awkward, and was originally phrased that way to match the old name of the article. It can be changed now. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it reads fine. The change by Yaksar (talk · contribs) was grammatically inappropriate and made the read much worse. Please, Yaksar (talk · contribs), do not do this again. -- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's in the passive voice and just seems out of place. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What do other editors think, other than the two who have already commented in this subsection? Let us wait for other comment, before making the sentence read worse. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "While most recipients of the Golden Raspberry Award do not personally collect the award, some have accepted it as the as the awards process has gained more prominence." --Yaksar (let's chat) 01:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says this? That is an WP:NOR violation. -- Cirt (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If that's so, then the current sentence violates this also and must be changed. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how else to say it, you were the one that changed it from "this is a list of", which had no WP:NOR. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the current one, or the one I proposed would qualify as original research. I just think it would be better if the grammar and phrasing was improved. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, certainly your change is WP:NOR. The best thing to do is to go back to the version that simply states it is a list. -- Cirt (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the best thing to do would be to find better phrasing without violating WP: Lead. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOR is policy. -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, you probably understand that policy better than I do. Can I at least add the word "its" back in so it is grammatically correct? Yaksar (let's chat) 02:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that, the new intro works fine. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence. I removed the WP:NOR violation. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Barry Pepper

As brought up by another user, Barry Pepper does not seem to meet the criteria for this list. While I can see the merits of including him, I think he needs to be removed. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have since been  Done. -- Cirt (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Article title

I believe this article's title should be "List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards", with the word have added to it, as with articles like this and this. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, the current title would apply if the award was no longer given, which is not the case. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This is now  Done. I moved it. -- Cirt (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Julie Newmar

Could someone who is better at editing lists that I am add Julie Newmar to the Catwoman section of the list? Thanks! Yaksar (let's chat) 01:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

She wasn't a recipient so technically shouldn't be listed. The film was the recipient, and she just accepted it on behalf of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going by the current criteria of the list: people who've accepted the award, not winners who've accepted it. But if it's just winners we're listing, we'd have to remove Robert Conrad. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The table only lists "recipients" though. Ideally there should be an entry for "Catwoman" as the "recipent" and the notes should say that Newmar accepted the award for the film. Betty Logan (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you think we should remove Conrad from the list then?Yaksar (let's chat) 01:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

At the moment recipients and acceptors are confused. I think we either need to remove the acceptors and just leave in the recipents, or just note the acceptors in the notes if their acceptance is considered notable. Conrad shouldn't be listed as a "recipient" because it looks like he won the Razzie. Another option would be to have an "accepted by" column. Let's see what the editors think. Betty Logan (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed Conrad. -- Cirt (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there should probably still be something about Newmar and Conrad in the article, since they are unique cases of the awards being accepted, but since I'd like to know everyone's opinion. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no "article" just a very brief lede. Not appropriate, per WP:LEAD. -- Cirt (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

By "article" I meant on the page as a whole, whether in the list itself or in an added notes section. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Though...." in lede

• diff by Yaksar (talk · contribs)

It is not appropriate for the WP:LEAD to make such POV assertions. Please, do not make this revert again, without discussing it here on the talk page to obtain consensus. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• diff = per his normal pattern, Yaksar (talk · contribs) reverted, again, before discussing on the talk page. Extremely inappropriate first sentence for the lede of this article. -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it would be more POV to keep the sentence you want in, considering that the term "few" is basically up to the interpretation of whoever added it. The current first sentence is cited and contains no bias, and is easily proved. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would be better to just scrap the first sentence and go with "The Golden Raspberry Awards, known as the Razzies, is an awards ceremony to recognize the worst in American film, but the winners do not usually attend the event". It would then retain the phrasing from the source." Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I worry that that doesn't really touch upon the subject of the article, which the current first sentence does. And I really don't see how the current first sentence has a POV or misinterprets the source, as Cirt claimed. I do think, however, that it can certainly be improved.Yaksar (let's chat) 02:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How about: "The winners of the Golden Raspberry Award usually do not attend the ceremony[1] to accept the award, but there have been exceptions." Betty Logan (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100112115005/http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/tv/article/john-rogers-has-leverage-73175 to http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/tv/article/john-rogers-has-leverage-73175

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)