Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Unnecessary subheadings, which violate MOS:Paragraphs, in the Box office sections

Since 2014, there has been an increasing trend in adding unnecessary subheadings to the Box office section of Wikipedia film articles. I believe that Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk · contribs) is the main editor responsible for this trend. I explained to him on his talk page the page why I have a problem with this; I told him: You've seen me revert you at times while citing MOS:Paragraphs; the part I am referring to is where it states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." It is usually not good form to create a subheading for one-sentence material, material that is a couple of sentences or material that is otherwise significantly small. Just like the Critical reception section usually does not need to be broken up into Positive reviews and Negative reviews, the Box section usually, or at least often, does not need to be broken up into North America and Outside North America or North America and Other territories. The non-heading text can inform readers what content pertains to "outside North America," like the Cinderella (2015 film) article does. That is why I reverted you here, here and here at that article. If the box office content becomes hefty, like the box office content at the Fifty Shades of Grey (film) article currently is, then it is a good idea to split the content into subsections.

Josephlalrinhlua786 ignored me, and has continued to add unnecessary subheadings to the Box office section of the Cinderella (2015 film) article. He usually ignores editors, often WP:Edit wars, and does not discuss matters on Wikipedia talk pages, which makes it difficult to seek WP:Dispute resolution concerning him. This is seen on his talk page, where he has received various warnings and two WP:Block notices (for WP:Disruptive editing) so far. I decided to bring the matter here as a second step, and will post a message about it at the MOS:FILM talk page, directing editors here, for those who may be watching that talk page but not this one. Also look at the current state of the The Divergent Series: Insurgent article, which is also Josephlalrinhlua786's Box office setup. How exactly is that setup good for that article at this point? Why should we tolerate and/or encourage this setup at articles when it is not needed? If you look at the Man of Steel (film) article, which Bignole got to WP:Good article status, the setup is also there, but it is somewhat hidden because Favre1fan93 added Template:TOC limit to the article after I reverted Dibyendutwipzbiswas there. I noted that Template:TOC limit helps, but that I still don't see the need for those subheadings in that case. Again, when it is a little bit of text, what is "outside North America" can be adequately relayed with non-heading text. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is unnecessary to break down the article to that extent. Third-level headings are generally not necessary unless the section is unusually long, and aesthetically it makes the article look "bitty" as is the case at The_Divergent_Series:_Insurgent#Box_office. Josephlalrinhlua786's block log seems to indicate a history of problematic edits: copyvios, false edit summaries etc. The fact that he is adding MOS violations to his catalog and edit-warring over it indicates that he is going to continue disregarding the rules. Betty Logan (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely doesn't need level 3 headings. To my mind, unless a film did major business throughout a long run and/or broke many records, film articles shouldn't have BO level 3 headings. Bolded headings are sufficient. If Josephlalrinhlua786 continues deliberately ignoring guidelines then perhaps ANI is the next step, although I would try giving him another chance if only because he has made a lot of constructive edits, and seems to be the only one updating BO information there. Lapadite (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments on this matter. I would have fixed the Box office section at The Divergent Series: Insurgent by now if I hadn't seen Lkaliba editing there. Lkaliba is another film editor who is prone to ignore Wikipedia's rules. I'd rather not deal with Lkaliba's constant reverts.

As for other articles with this aforementioned format, it would be good to read what other film editors of this WikiProject think of this matter. If a film article obviously does not need these subheadings, then why do you allow these subheadings? Like I stated, this trend is significant now. Josephlalrinhlua786 has been aided by film editors not caring about ridiculous subheading setups like the aforementioned one at The Divergent Series: Insurgent. Is it that you do care, and will now remove the unnecessary subheadings? It's a pain being the only one removing subheadings that treat our readers as though they are stupid. Flyer22 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If there isn't enough content to justify splitting, I say don't use subheadings. But if you have a decent size amount of content (maybe 1 paragraph+) then there isn't any harm in the headings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of the issue until it was raised here, so it depends who is watching what I guess. I would advise editors to revert these changes on sight providing a link to this discussion in the edit summary and if they are re-reverted then report it here and other project members can assist. Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In response to Lapadite77's comment above, bolded headings were used instead of the level three headings, until it was brought to at least my attention, that it is a violation of MOS:ACCESS. Thus, they need to be changed to level 3 headings, and if necessary, at TOClimit template can be added. However, as I stated above, if there is enough content (I said maybe 1+ paragraphs), the headings would be fine (see Guardians of the Galaxy (film) or The Avengers (film) as examples of what I feel is an acceptable use of this). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, right, fourth level, as shown in the Guardians and Avengers' articles, with TOC limit is the alternative (aside from the less desirable non-bolded text). My issue is only with unnecessary subheadings on the TOC, particularly level 4 and up. There can be as many subheading as needed in the prose, if warranted, without cluttering up the TOC. If those editors revert to visible and/or unnecessary subheadings, report if they disrupt again after they've been reminded of the guidelines and this discussion. Wherever this subheading issue arises the guidelines along with this discussion should be linked on the talk page of the article(s). Lapadite (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, it's not about what is being hurt. That is, unless we are speaking of the look of the article coming across as just a tad silly. Then it's the look of the article that is being hurt. Not to mention that, without Template:TOC limit, the article looks bigger than it is from the table of contents in these cases. This is about following a simple rule: MOS:Paragraphs. There should be a valid reason to have the content split into subheadings. Look at the subheadings you readded to Man of Steel (film)#Box office. Or look at the subheadings currently at Captain America: The Winter Soldier#Box office. Why are those subheadings needed? How are they helping readers, when readers can clearly see what content pertains to "outside North America" without the headings? Or since if they cannot see that, we can make that aspect clear to them with non-heading text? You stated "maybe 1 paragraph+," but one paragraph can be a single-sentence paragraph, a two-sentence paragraph or an otherwise small paragraph. And a single paragraph usually does not need its own subheading.

Thanks, Betty. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Box office sections were doing just fine without these unnecessary subheadings, and we can simply go back to that state of being fine without them. Subheadings are meant to make article navigation easier, from the table of contents; they are not meant to be there without good reason. Flyer22 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I'm okay with the Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#Box office and The Avengers (2012 film)#Box office examples; those are fine uses of subheadings. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I still believe we get back to one crux of the issue, which was MOS:ACCESS. For the Cap: TWS page you mentioned, beyond having a general consistency across the MCU film articles, at one point I believe bold heading were used. It provided the separation but not with headings. Which I believe is a variant on your version of just starting the content with "In NA" or "Outside NA". But if we want that separation and would prefer not to word it as you suggest, MOS:ACCESS does not allow us to use the bold headings. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm against the bold headings as well, per MOS:ACCESS, which I also made clear at Dibyendutwipzbiswas's talk page. And consistency across articles is fine, except for in cases where that consistency violates a rule and/or is not beneficial. If it's a valid WP:Ignore all rules case, okay then, but that is a rare exception. If you look at the current state of Captain America: The First Avenger#Box office, you can see that it does not have have unnecessary box office headings. Yes, it has significantly less content than the Box office sections at the Man of Steel (film) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier articles do, but, as already noted, I fail to see why those box office subheadings are needed at the Man of Steel (film) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier articles. They are not helping from the table of contents since they are hidden via Template:TOC limit, and the "North America" and "Outside North America" content would be easily identifiable without the subheadings since it's a little bit of material. Again, if we argue that they are not easily identifiable to some people, we can simply use non-heading text by stating "In North America," [etc.]." Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The First Avenger also doesn't have any international box office info to potentially have the headings. It's all NA info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, you have not provided a good reason for keeping the unnecessary box office section headings at the Man of Steel (film) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier articles. Consistency with other Marvel articles is not a good reason by itself, which I already noted in my "05:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)" post above. If a good reason is not provided for keeping those subheadings, I will remove them. I intend to squash this "unnecessary box office subheading" trend, and this discussion has given me the means to do so. The next step will be a WP:RfC if necessary; then again, maybe not since WP:RfCs have not had a lot of traffic these days, and I'm not sure that publicizing the WP:RfC at the WP:Village pump and across WikiProjects will help. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't do much work on newer films, only have touched a couple of dozen or so, most of my work is on older films. However, the arguments brought up here are very valid. I think the crux of the matter boils down to points made by Favre1fan93 regarding MOS:ACCESS, as well as the point made by Flyer22 about the purpose of subheadings. If the main purpose of headings/subheadings is for navigation, then clearly simply bolding headings should be verboten. And, again if navigation is the main purpose, that should be the guiding principle, as many others have said, to when subheadings could, and in some instances should, be used. Onel5969 (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In this case, trying to shut down an editor or editing trend with MOS:PARAGRAPHS seems a bit of an overreach. Wikipedia does provide SIX levels of subheadings, and tools to keep the ToC uncluttered. As for the editorial case, well, there is a decent argument to be made for subsectioning Box office for "North America" and "Other territories," not necessarily in every case (and we don't have mandated layouts), but probably whenever an editor wants to:

1. For English-language feature films in particular (the articles most likely to be consulted), NA (USA+Canada) is the leading market, and statistics pertaining to NA are quite easy to understand. Box office elsewhere can be quite difficult to understand: there is no uniformity of regions covered between articles, it's not clear whether the figures refer to dubbed or subtitled versions, etc, and sometimes the figures seem quite arbitrary and meaningless (for example, in Man of Steel (film), why is there a figure for "United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta," what is the significance of that grouping regarding film box office?). Separating the two sets of figures, which can read like apples and oranges, may help with navigation and zeroing in on what a reader is looking for.

2. Reliable sources for film box office stats, like Box Office Mojo, have a top level division between North American (Domestic gross, which is US+Canada[1]) and foreign earnings; this is the box office reporting convention.

3. For most, probably all major English-language feature films, a Google search for "film name box office" (a likely search phrase) returns the corresponding Wikipedia article in the top 10 results (for Man of Steel, it's the #3 result, with a direct link to the Box office section), so making Box office in particular, as clear and easy to navigate for readers is a reasonably important consideration.

I've checked a few films, and in some cases, the content in the Box office section would work well as a single paragraph. However, as soon as there's any sort of detailed breakdown of stats, especially separating NA and elsewhere, a good case can be made for subheadings (specifically, NA and Other, per above), even when the content of each section is quite brief.

I'm not supporting Box office sectioning, simply pointing out that it is one valid view, and often there is no single "right" or even "better" approach, just opinions. Sometimes, we are all not going to agree, then it's necessary for one side to voluntarily disengage for a period, which is a fundamental Wikipedia principle (and something I've somewhat painfully learned to do :). Hope that helps the discussion! --Tsavage (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, there is no overreach here; there is a guideline, which is a rule, and there is common sense. In the aforementioned cases that I have a problem with, the subheadings are not needed, and I've explained why they are not needed. No one has explained how those subheadings are helpful. Like I stated above, "I fail to see why those box office subheadings are needed at the Man of Steel (film) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier articles. They are not helping from the table of contents since they are hidden via Template:TOC limit, and the 'North America' and 'Outside North America' content would be easily identifiable without the subheadings since it's a little bit of material. Again, if we argue that they are not easily identifiable to some people, we can simply use non-heading text by stating 'In North America,' [etc.]." We don't need headings to let readers know what content pertains to North America or otherwise. I see WP:Consensus against the aforementioned subheading cases that I have a problem with, and to not use any other unnecessary subheadings, and I will be adhering to that. As for your comment, I understand what you mean, and I'm not stating that we should ban box office subheadings; we don't have that power anyway. Even MOS:FILM is simply a guideline, not mandatory. I am arguing that editors use common sense with regard to when subheadings are needed. I don't think it's always opinion in that regard; some subheadings are clearly unneeded. And, from what I and others see, the ones that I am against are clearly unneeded. That goes double for how The Divergent Series: Insurgent#Box office is at this very moment. On a side note: I don't mean to come across as rude by stating that you should consider keeping WP:Too long, didn't read in mind when you reply. And I state that as someone who sometimes makes long comments, and have had people complain about that. I was worried about my initial post in this section being too long, but I knew that enough editors here would read that hefty, two-paragraph comment. Flyer22 (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(You do seem rude with your TL;DR comment. To read only replies under a certain word count, just do it!) My point: it is not Wikipedia to use guidelines to force contributors to comply with personal opinions. In my opinion, Man of Steel (film) is a good use of NA and Other subheads, and its Box office section is directly linked to in Google: "Man of Steel box office". That's a single case. You started this thread with "an increasing trend in adding unnecessary subheadings to the Box office section of Wikipedia film articles," which is what I addressed above. I've added what I can, and I will now...disengage. :) --Tsavage (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, I was not trying to be rude by pointing to WP:Too long, didn't read; like I stated, I've had editors tell me that my comments are too long and that either they didn't read them or didn't read them in full, or that my points got lost in them. As recently as this case at Dibyendutwipzbiswas's talk page, that aspect was noted to me. And in that case, my comments are not even that long; at least they are not to me. I told Dibyendutwipzbiswas, "If the comment requires a paragraph or two from me, that is what I will provide. But I do keep the length of my comments in mind." All that I meant to note to you on length of comments is that the WP:Too long, didn't read essay exists because a lot of people are like that (not wanting to read comments that they deem too long) on and off Wikipedia. The comments that I have seen from you at the MOS:FILM talk page and here are typically long. As for the Man of Steel (film) article case, we agree to disagree on that; I've been clear above why I object to that setup. And yet again, no one has named how that setup is needed or is otherwise beneficial; no one has named how we are not acting like readers are stupid by that setup. Regarding your Google link, I see nothing in that link that specifically points to the "North America" and "Other territories" subsections; pointing to the Box office subsection is what I see of that Google link, and that would still happen without the "North America" and "Other territories" subsections. I use Wikipedia policies and guidelines as they should be used; if people want the personal opinions of those rules changed, they should make their cases at the talk pages of those rules. I noted more than one case of unneeded subheadings in this discussion. Yes, there is "an increasing trend in adding unnecessary subheadings to the Box office section of Wikipedia film articles," and I listed examples. I edit and otherwise see enough Wikipedia film articles to know that this is the case, and that it started in 2014 with Josephlalrinhlua786. There is no need to have an exhaustive list in this discussion on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don’t get the argument against subheadings. MOS:PARAGRAPHS does not discourage their use for anything but short single paragraphs, and the paragraphs in the provided examples I’ve clicked to don’t seem particularly short. It seems like a lot of the argument against them is rooted in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Things were fine without them? Great. Doesn’t mean we’re better off without them. (Of course, it doesn’t help matters when an editor proposing an equally valid alternative does so by edit-warring and doesn’t deign to discuss anything. But that’s beside the point.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been clear above that MOS:PARAGRAPHS states, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." It also states, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text." Those aspects without a doubt apply to the aforementioned cases. You stated "[the paragraphs] in the provided examples [you've] clicked to don't seem particularly short." Firstly, MOS:PARAGRAPHS does not state "particularly short." But let's go with your "particularly short" angle for a moment: Really, Cinderella (2015 film)#Box office is not particularly short and the subheadings in this version don't show that particularly shortness at all? Really, The Divergent Series: Insurgent#Box office is not "particularly short"? Your eyes are clearly seeing differently than mine in this regard. The same goes for the other aforementioned subheadings that I have a problem with. There is no WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument with regard to anything I, or those who agreed with me, have stated above. I do not edit Wikipedia with a WP:IDONTLIKEI rationale. Bottom line is this: I will continue removing the unnecessary subheadings, and doing so is in line with MOS:PARAGRAPHS. On a side note: You should sign in. I don't buy that you don't have a registered Wikipedia account or that you never had a registered Wikipedia account. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Briefly looking at your edit history, I see that you are the IP who has continually come into conflict with WP:Film editors. I wanted to see where we have possibly interacted, so I used this tool. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

In the Cinderella example, six sentences under the first subheading in that version, and multiple paragraphs (albeit one of them single-sentence) under the second; similarly for Insurgent. No, they do not seem short by any reasonable definition, in my opinion. (You may however note that I’m overlooking the paragraph introducing those subsections—which certainly seems lacking as an introduction.) I won’t strongly take a position either way, though, other than to agree that the manner in which some subheadings were added (with no regard for consensus) was entirely unacceptable. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s fair to say “continually.” The only conflict was over a single WP:NCFILM issue which in my opinion is still unresolved, but that’s all I’ll say about it here and now. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Although I dislike disjointed discussion, I appreciate that you replied about whatever account you have. As for "continually," your edit history reveals that you've been in conflict with Lugnuts more than once, and that you've been in conflict with Betty Logan. As for the subheading matter, I agree to disagree on the "too short" aspect. The aforementioned subheadings that I have a problem with are useless for the reasons I've mentioned. And I've seen useless subheadings mess up articles, as they make the articles look significantly longer than they are and make navigating through the articles more difficult for our readers if Template:TOC limit is not used. I've seen articles tagged with Template:Too long because of such subheadings when the article is not a WP:SIZE issue at all. And, like I stated above, the table of contents is to help our readers navigate through the articles. They are not being helped from the table of contents by subheadings if Template:TOC limit is used to hide those subheadings. And they are not being helped by the subheadings if what is "North America" and "outside North America" is readily clear, which it usually is. We usually don't need subheadings to spell out the content to our readers. In fact, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Headings states that headings "selected for emphasis [...] is not the purpose of headings." In the cases I mentioned (the ones that I'm against), non-heading text suffices when the content is small or medium-sized. When the content becomes too big, then we should use subheadings to help our readers navigate from section to section; that is exactly how subheadings should be used in Wikipedia articles. So I cannot agree with your take on this issue. Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No-one is against sub-headings in the Box Office sections; Flyer even highlights several where she agrees with sub-headings. What she does disagree with—and I apologize if I am putting words into her mouth—is turning it into a standardized format. Introducing sub-headings at The Divergent Series: Insurgent#Box office clearly goes against the spirit of MOS:PARAGRAPHS. They are simply not needed. A paragraphed format easily accommodates the different groupings of information without a reduction in readability. It seems to me some editors here are effectively arguing for the elimination of paragraphs altogether and turning them into sections, and in most cases it is unwarranted to refine the information to that extent. Betty Logan (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I’m not aware of any rule to use headings only where strictly needed, but you do have a point. Like I implied earlier, I consider both ways valid and can see some valid arguments for each. One may be preferred in these cases, but neither is wrong. That’s this editor’s opinion, at least. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

MOS:Paragraphs is a rule, and it let's us know when we generally should not use a subheading. Again, I agree to disagree; my other "18:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)" post (above) explains more on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a large amount of editorial discretion permitted in this regard, but turning short paragraphs into sections is discouraged by MOS:Paragraphs. So what counts as a short paragraph? Well according to this source paragraphs in business are typically 4–5 sentences while in academic writing 8–10 sentences, so we can take from that anything below 4 sentences is a short paragraph, and many people would regard anything below 8 sentences to be a short paragraph too. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that even though Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk · contribs) knows that this discussion is going on, he re-added the subheadings with a little bit of material to the Cinderella (2015 film) article, as if the subheadings are needed after that little addition. Josephlalrinhlua786 apparently thinks that a little extra material makes the section need those subheadings. And it's not like I know exactly what Josephlalrinhlua786 is thinking on this matter, since he refuses to let me know what he is thinking. I reverted again, and indicated that I will take him to WP:ANI over the matter if this continues. He's been taken to WP:ANI before, though, and will not care. For another recent case where his subheadings are unnecessary, see this setup at the Home (2015 film) article. I reverted that setup as well. Indeed, this editor has nearly single-handedly made this setup standard across Wikipedia film articles; so there are various articles I will be removing this setup from. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

IP user and plot summaries

There's an IP user, 2600:1006:B119:FD87:9DA1:6D69:46F7:C1C3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), shortening plot summaries that have been tagged with {{plot}}. Normally, that's a good thing, but this editor seems to be indiscriminately deleting multiple paragraphs without summarizing them, and he's doing it rapidly across many articles. I don't know if the plot summaries are still coherent after that. Maybe someone could look at that and see. I'd rather not deal with the added stress right now. I just created a new article, and the executive producer showed up within 30 minutes of my pressing "save" to edit war with me over whether he's credited in the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC) edit: Well, I left what I hope is a friendly and non-bitey message on the IP's talk page and requested that the editor respond here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This editor has been around awhile. they used 2600:1006:B129:3526:45EB:1B6E:84F:D418 (talk · contribs) earlier in the month. There might have been other IPs used but I can't find them at the moment. I can't remember them ever responding to talk page messages. While the plot summaries could use trimming they are reduced to something that barely describes what went on at all. This is a good example of why WP:FILMPLOT has a word count recommendation at the low end. MarnetteD|Talk 01:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've come across this editor; see the recent edit history here. And the recent edit history here and here when the editor was 73.132.78.108 (talk · contribs). I tried to explain to the editor at User talk:2600:1006:B02F:EE16:90D:60FB:4922:354A, but, as you can see, it didn't work. Flyer22 (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There's also 2601:A:6400:39E:99D8:5AD6:5CA5:EE6E. In some cases an over-long film plot can simply be rolled back to the last time it was compliant with WP:FILMPLOT, but not always. This person is going to extremes to reduce film plots, and I consider it disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I never noticed this IP user before. I think he gave a response on his talk page, but I'm not quite sure if he was replying to me or to RefernceBot. Maybe this means there has been progress? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That editor's plot summary cuts are usually a mess, and the articles are better off with the larger plot summaries in those cases. As my diff-links show, he also targets articles that are not tagged with Template:Plot; in some of those cases, he seems to have run the text through a word counter, while, in other cases, he bases the "too long" aspect on his opinion. Whatever the case, I doubt that his cutting will improve. I was clear to him before; he returned and engaged in more bad cutting. If he had not read my message, he would not have returned to that article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Film years and film made & produced from certain countries

Opinions are needed in the following matter: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Film_years_and_film_made_.26_produced_from_certain_countries. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hatnotes, WP:NAMB and multiple films with the same title RfC

Please see this RfC and the discussion directly above it too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

RSN: cinechicken.com

Hi there, I've opened a discussion at RSN about whether or not cinechicken.com, a RottenTomatoes copycat review aggregator for Bollywood films, could be considered a reliable source. The link is here and I invite you all to participate! Though many of you (like myself) are not familiar with the Bollywood film du jour, it is an area that really needs help adhering to existing Wikipedia Film standards. Wikipedia is often used as an unwitting mouthpiece for promotion, and the Bollywood realm could use more disinterested parties helping out. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Odd situation at Saving Christmas

While I cannot verify the claim, there is an editor purporting to be the cinematographer for Saving Christmas and is asking to have his name removed from that page. Motivation is clear, presuming this is him. Not sure how to proceed; this is an easily verifiable credit, but I don't know if we commonly list non-primary technical roles on small films. Advice and eyes appreciated. Kuru (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Practically speaking, there's really nothing that can be done. Even if we establish a consensus to erase his name from the infobox, it will continually be re-added by helpful IP editors. The IMDb is infamous about never removing any verifiable data from their database, and they will laugh off any threats of a lawsuit. He's pretty much screwed. And by making a big deal of it, he's inviting the Streisand effect, which will just feed the drama once some Hollywood gossip blog finds out that a filmmaker is edit warring to erase an embarrassing credit from Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't imagine that there is a particular reason to pass anything binding removing this from the article. The material is, AFAIK, true. It is clearly verifiable. Heck, the editor trying to remove it isn't arguing otherwise.

While I can't think of a good reason to exclude it, there's certainly room for normal discussion on the article's talk page as to whether this particular role belongs in this particular infobox.

Yes, this is a prime candidate for the Streisand effect to kick in. In fact, given the relatively limited coverage available on this film, any hint of coverage of an effort to hide anything pretty much guarantees that coverage will be added to the article, locking in the name and significantly magnifying it from a mere infobox mention.

Realistically, I don't really think anyone is looking at Saving Christmas and saying, "Damn! This film would be awesome if it weren't for the cinematography! Steer clear of that guy." Good, bad and indifferent professionals are involved in good, bad and indifferent films. Leprechaun isn't exactly a film anyone would want as their acting debut, but there's clearly no dearth of roles being offered to Jennifer Aniston. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the cinematographer for Leprechaun did recover and eventually work his way up to Tooth Fairy 2, so all is not lost. Kuru (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the belly laugh, Kuru. In all seriousness though, isn't he technically edit warring and vandalizing? He should be two warnings deep by now, right? Sock (tock talk) 02:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:VANDALISM is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". I don't think that is the intent, though it is certainly WP:DISRUPTION. I've now given them a warning for WP:3RR. Hopefully they will discuss the issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the 3RR warning, the editor has reverted twice more without signing in. If anyone feels the need to take them to WP:ANEW, feel free. Personally, I've given them another warning, saying they might be blocked now and, if they aren't but continue to revert, I will ask to have them blocked. Semi-protection, of course, is also an option. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I am the cinematographer for the film under discussion. I wish to have my name permanently with held from the project, because I want nothing to do with it, and I would prefer to not have my name assosicated with it. What more can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypatch (talk • contribs) 04:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

For starters, @Andypatch:, you can stop trying to remove your name from the article until after this situation is resolved, or you risk being blocked. Furthermore, unfortunately, Wikipedia is not censored.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

They were warned after three removals. They removed it twice more without logging in. I gave them a final warning (though they could have been blocked at that point). Ignoring that warning, they removed it again (then came here). I have submitted a case at ANEW. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

how do i resolve this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andypatch (talk • contribs) 04:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"...please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors..." [2]

"Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page..."[3]

"Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page..."[4]

"You need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page."[5]

"You are about to be blocked for edit warring. You will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page once your block expires."[6] - SummerPhD (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Newly created categories nominated for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 2#Category:Films with nudity / Category:Nudity in film. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Academy Awards to Oscars page moves

Resolved

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles for "Justice League: Gods and Monsters" and "Justice League: Gods and Monsters Chronicles"

Can we get articles for these animatedf films please? Npamusic (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If nothing else, we should have Justice League: Gods and Monsters as a redirect to the appropriate DCUA section. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Rename all (pornographic actor)s to (actor)s?

This affects WP Film so be aware of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Aja_.28actress.29_settled.2C_now_what.3F. Only one of the recent RMs to change (pornographic actress)s to (actress) succeeded but it's already been used for further undiscussed moves and non-admin close by one of two editors proposing the change. I have notified closing admin on Talk:Taylor Hayes (pornographic actress) move contrary close. Can we have broader set of eyes on this change please? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Technically, this would be more of an issue for WikiProject Biography. WikiProject Film only covers the actual films themselves. If it's a sitewide issue, you could try ANI, but I think ANI is getting tired of porn-related drama. It might be best to just leave that alone for a while unless you're absolutely certain that it won't boomerang. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

MOS:FILM RFC

I have started an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#RfC: Should the last sentence of the "Critical Reception" section at MOS:FILM be revised? suggesting a slight rewording of a sentence in the MOS, since I believe the current wording encourages original research. It would be good to get a few opinions if possible. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

(Another) Nationality question

Here is another question on film nationality. Case in point: Der Frosch mit der Maske. At Filmportal.de, which I would consider very reliable because they use a common standard in determining nationality, they list it as a purely Danish film: [7]. Since this is the film which launched the "Wallace series" of German movies, books on the subject tend to list it as "West German/Danish". However, it was filmed in Denmark (and London) and the production company was purely Danish - Preben Philipsen's "Rialto Film Preben Philipsen A/S" Kopenhagen. Yet they produced it for a German distributor - Constantin - using German staff, actors, director etc. It was made in German language and premiered in Germany. Any thoughts?Drow69 (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Danish Film Institute states it is a Danish-German co-production. Sam Sailor may know more, although he's not been around for a couple of weeks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ephemeral statements: "film had grossed" vs "film has grossed"

Howdy WP:FILM: I keep seeing people making ephemeral statements, typically about box office grosses, but using the present tense to do so. "As of April 5 2015, the film has grossed $100 million.[8][9][10] Am I nuts, or is this weird? (Or both?) What makes sense to me is to use the past tense, because this information, even if we write it with today's most current information, is still ephemeral and actually exists in the past. Thus, we should be using the past tense. We wouldn't say "As of yesterday, the Girl Scout has sold two boxes of cookies", we would say "As of yesterday, the Girl Scout had sold two boxes of cookies". Or we'd say "By the end of its run the film had grossed $100 million". I ran this past the reference desk and the general attitude tended to support my position, but I keep trying to change this stuff only to see it get changed back. Thoughts? If there are no objections, it would be nice if I could get some assists on this should you encounter them. Thx! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There's no advantage to using the present tense. I change it when I see it too, but I've never had to fight over it. I also often change "as of April 5" to "by April 5" as it's one fewer word and doesn't date the prose ("this text hasn't been updated in that long?"). Popcornduff (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It depends on the context, but in the examples given above where the information is dated I agree past tense should be used. On the other hand, something like "Avatar has grossed $2.8 billion" is ok if you are referring to the current total. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Studios estimate the film will gross $100 million." → Future-looking speculation.
• "The film had grossed $100 million by April 1." → It's April 7, and we're discussing what happened by the time of April 1.
• "The film has grossed $100 million as of April 7." → It might continue to make more money later.
• "The film grossed $100 million." → Box office run is completed, and it will not make more money.
• "The film will have grossed at least $100 million in April before it is released to home video." → Looking back from a futuristic point.

As long as it's intelligible, it's probably good enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

See, I disagree with bullet 3—it should be "had". Because even though we're talking about something that is accurate as of today, by the time you write it down, it's not presumed to be accurate anymore. We don't know when it will be read, and we don't know when someone is going to come along and update it. It's fleeting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with bullet 3 because the time is relevant to the date, not when it is written or read.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The time is relevant to the date? You've lost me. Do any of these sentences read correctly to you such that their general structure would be appropriate for an encyclopedia? "Joey has made $10 as of yesterday." "By December 2, 2014 ISIS has killed 3,000 people." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The phrase "As of" is a dated time reference, so the use of the present perfect tense means that it is current till the specified date. If you were to drop the "as of" statement then it would be current until now. The past perfect as you suggest would be incorrect because it means that the action was completed sometime before the specified date not until the specified date.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cypoidbomb.

I think we have to careful not to get lost in a separate argument about "the film grossed" vs "the film has grossed", which as NinjaRobotPirate points out have subtly different meanings and provide a useful distinction. But it's not what Betty Logan is asking. I can't think of any reason why using the present tense in the examples Betty Logan's talking about is preferable; the information dates immediately, so what's the benefit? Popcornduff (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The gross is relevant to the date used in prose, April 7 in that example. When the gross is updated, the date is also updated. If the film's box office run is completed then the entire sentence is in past tense; If it's still in theaters then it obviously needs to be in present tense - e.g., "As of April 7, the film has grossed x amount...". It doesn't sound right to say, "the film had grossed..." if it is still making money, unless you're noting a record or gross for a particular time frame. Lapadite (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Present perfect ("has grossed") would be used if you're describing something that started in the past and is ongoing. Past perfect ("had grossed") would be used if you're describing something that started and ended in the past. When you say "had", that implies the action has completed. So: "King Buzzo plays songs when he is in concert." "King Buzzo will play three songs eventually." "King Buzzo is playing a song currently." "King Buzzo has played three songs so far." "King Buzzo had played three songs by the midpoint of the concert." "King Buzzo played three songs total." Subtly different. But few people besides high school English teachers will care. And then there's the subjunctive mood: "If King Buzzo were playing a song, I would listen." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

THE King Buzzo? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Came here from WP:RDL. Either "had grossed" or "has grossed" is appropriate in certain contexts, because they have distinct meanings: as a result, use either one in the wrong context, and it makes a mess. "Has grossed" is good for "as of ____" or without a date qualification: it reports all takings to the present. "Had grossed" is good for a limited period of time, e.g. "By February 31, the film had grossed $2.15 across all theaters"; it talks about something that's already completed. Bear in mind that long-ago films can still earn money: if Disney followed all the copyright provisions carefully, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is still in copyright, and legal copies can easily be found for sale, so we need to say "Disney has grossed $whatever from Snow White". Response to the ISIS comment: the problem is that "As of DATE, whatever" statements are almost always a bad idea. They prevent the encyclopedia from being dated, but they soon become useless: who cares about "As of 2005, George Bush is the US President", since that's ten years ago and no longer current? Remove those statements and offer firm statements, e.g. "George Bush was US President in 2005" — it assumes that 2005 is some sort of time in the past and doesn't make an awkward attempt to avoid becoming dated. Use "Has" in impossible-to-disprove statements, e.g. "Spongebob has grossed more than $100 million" — even if everyone stops going to see it, and nobody ever rents or buys a copy, their sales can't drop below $100 million. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The reported gross amounts are tallies that are completed for the dates reported whether we write "as of date" or "by date", such that these are completed actions, so unless the date is current, I'd use "had grossed" even if the film is still in the theaters or on the internet today (which many are) or at some future date such that they gross even more. --Modocc (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Then say "The film had grossed 15¢ by YYYY-MM-DD". The other option is really only valid if you're talking present tense, e.g. "Since its release, the film has brought in approximately 15¢", without chronological limit. "As of YYYY-MM-DD" implies an ongoing thing, so it shouldn't be used for a completed item or a benchmark date, the way "By YYYY-MM-DD" is normally used. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "by" is better understood that way, but I'm not sure "as of" implies an ongoing action. For instance: "As of March 31st Bob had not lost a single game, but he lost the very next day." --Modocc (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Censoring a quote at the Titanic (1997 film) article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Censoring the Empire quote. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone... anyone...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

New article Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead (film)

I quickly put this together this evening, so it still needs a lot of work, but would someone here please take a look at it as it currently stands? I would also ask someone to be kind enough to upload the movie poster for the infobox, as I don't really know how to do that. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys for some helpful edits! Anyone know about uploading the poster? Invertzoo (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone for more fix-up, and to Fortdj33 for uploading the film poster. What do people think about the title of the article: should it be in the long form, Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead: The Story of National Lampoon? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the current title is sufficient, per WP:PRECISE. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:PRECISE has no relevance here. If the film name is the full Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead: The Story of the National Lampoon (as would seem from IMDB and the news articles referenced in the article), then that is the name the article should be. 1994 Baker Street: Sherlock Holmes Returns isn't shortened to 1994 Baker Street or Sherlock Holmes Returns and the FA article Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins isn't shortened to Meerkat Manor (film) or Meerkat Manor (tv movie). Adding to that, the title name itself isn't even without additions, but its a disambiguation since its shares the same short name as the book article, which itself isn't the full name of the book which is Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead: The Writers and Artists who made National Lampoon Insanely Great, making the disambiguation very unnecessary. --Gonnym (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've often wondered how much of a title to include, but, like Fortdj33, I have settled upon using the full title, more-or-less per WP:PRECISE. I don't understand why someone would say that this does not apply when it's a part of a policy on naming articles. Anyway, there seems to be a de facto practice of using full titles. For other projects, they may frown upon this; for example, WP:SUBTITLES, which allows for a limited degree of subtitle use in order to disambiguate and give proper context. When I created Aziz Ansari: Live at Madison Square Garden, it was partly to disambiguate it against Live at Madison Square Garden, a Bon Jovi album. Since the full title of the film allows me to disambiguate it without going through the bother of creating a disambiguation page, that's what I did. And, as Gonnym points out, we have a history of using full titles in film articles, including many Good and Featured articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

So, now I am not sure what to do. Do both the book and the film articles need to be changed, each to the long title form? Currently I set the long forms up as redirect pages. If there is a consensus about how they should be changed, I would be happy to let someone else just go ahead and changed the titles. Invertzoo (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's incredibly important. WP:PRECISE says it's good enough, but the WikiProject often uses full titles. I think that's what I was trying to say in my previous message, but it looks like maybe I was a bit tired; sorry about that. Redirects can resolve any issues relating to titles. Book title looks fine, per WP:SUBTITLES. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant WP:CONCISE, not WP:PRECISE. IMO, if there is no other film article titled "Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead", then the current title is sufficient, and the subtitle is unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, so we are good then I think? I do have redirects in place. Invertzoo (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Under the Skin top ten lists

What should be done about the gigantic top ten lists on Under the Skin (2013 film)? I'm stumped. I want to just delete it all because it's a mess, but is this information useful in some capacity? Is there some sensible way to limit it to just a few? Popcornduff (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There was a related discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Awards organizations' notability. General consensus seemed to be to limit awards to those verified by a third-party citation. For top ten lists, I would suggest that listed critics demonstrate notability through the existence of an article. I will note that List of accolades received by WALL-E does not have any top ten lists, and it's a featured list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As seen on my talk page, I am in agreement with Popcornduff that the top ten list in the Under the Skin (2013 film) article should be removed; it is WP:Trivia-like/is WP:Fancruft. As seen with this edit summary for NinjaRobotPirate's above post, he called the information "a bit indiscriminate." Anyone else has thoughts on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone seems to have dealt with this, which is great. Can anyone offer guidance about what to do with the similarly overlong Accolades section? Is it worth creating a separate article for it? This is really out of my experience. Popcornduff (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well first up, it needs to be referenced. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I know that much, but I see that as a separate problem. Where should it go and how long should it be? (I didn't add it.) Popcornduff (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If it was an article on my watchlist, I would have split out the awards into their own article by now (subject to references being found). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a citation to every entry, and then just before I saved the page, I closed my browser accidentally. I don't know if I can bring myself to do it again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC) edit: Well, that was incredibly tedious, but I did it again. Except this time it's about 95% complete. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You hero! Popcornduff (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was mostly tedious rather than difficult. I seem to have a high tolerance for that. I located the last few citations, but I don't know what to do with that huge section, though. Maybe tag it with {{split section}} and start a talk page discussion? Most of the time when I do that, I forget about it and nothing ever happens. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep - that's why I'm asking here instead. I really doubt anything would happen if I asked on the Talk page. Popcornduff (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Films set in...

Quick question, and I apologize if this has been asked before... Is there any sort of basic criteria regarding the "Films set in..." categories. I noted that The Day After Tomorrow was recently added to Films set in Antarctica. But the Antarctica sequence only really figures in what's essentially the "prologue" of the film and I think it could be argued that it's not even particularly relevant to the plot.

I'm just wondering whether there should be any sort of criteria applied to these categories beyond "the location appears in the film and stuff happens there". Thanks for your input! DonIago (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources discuss its importance to the film's plot, such as Taxi Driver or Heat, then it definitely belongs, as it's a defining characteristic. If reliable sources mention the setting in passing, then I would have no problem with its inclusion, but I might not bother to add it myself. If the setting is not mentioned in reliable sources, but it's included in the Wikipedia article's plot summary, then that's still good enough for me, as long as the plot summary adheres to MOS:FICT and WP:FILMPLOT. If neither reliable sources nor the Wikipedia article mention it, then I wouldn't have an issue with the category's removal. On the other hand, removal of categories can be a very traumatic experience for some people, and they will fight tooth-and-nail to keep them. So, unless it's really a big deal, I wouldn't bother to remove it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately something like this comes down to editorial discretion. Even if something is fully set in LA where the location isn't integral to the plot and is only covered in passing (Die Hard for example) does that mean we should not categorize it as such? I have never taken a hard line on this, but generally categories should reflect article content, so if the location is mentioned in the article prose at some point I usually let it go. Betty Logan (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think only the setting of a large part of the film, maybe above 25%, should be categorized. For most films that means a single geographic setting. I hope nobody would add a film to Category:Films set in restaurants due to a brief dinner scene at a restaurant. The same should apply to geographic locations. If that part of the film was actually shot at the location, or the location (and not merely the events happening there) is essential to the plot, then I may go lower like 15%. The Day After Tomorrow has categories for Delhi, Los Angeles, New York City, Scotland, Tokyo, Washington D.C., Antarctica. That seems silly. I saw this film (albeit some years ago) and don't remember most of those places. It was a film set in USA with a few scenes from other places, some of which aren't even mentioned in the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with this methodology, though exceptions should maybe be made in scenarios where a setting that typically wouldn't be included received significant attention from third-party sources. DonIago (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Country list in the infobox film

Is there a guideline, a consensus, a discussion about the order of listed countries in the infobox film? Is an alphabetical order for example undesired?

There is a dispute in The Grand Budapest Hotel over the correct order of countries in the infobox. In the current revision, there are six different sources for countries, with different (and even conflicting) informations. Provided sources list the countries as follows:

• Variety: UK, Germany
• The Hollywood Reporter: UK, Germany
• National Media Museum: UK, Germany
• BFI: Germany, USA
• TCM: USA
• Allmovie: USA

Other potential sources also have different informations:

• IMDb: USA, Germany, UK
• Berlinale: UK, Germany
• Cineuropa: USA, Germany
• Europas Cinemas: USA, Germany
• German Films: UK, Germany
• Irish Film Institute: USA, Germany
• FEST: USA, Germany
• Studio Babelsberg: UK, Germany

I think it is logical to list the countries simply in alphabetical order in such cases. I haven't seen anything about this matter in related guidelines, giving priority to IMDb for example. An alphabetical order for countries doesn't seem to be a problem in artilcles like Antichrist, The Pianist, The Ninth Gate, Cosmopolis, In the Fog etc. --Raamin (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

{{infobox film}} offers guidance on this issue, but there isn't a strict rule. In the case of dispute, you can hash it out on the article's talk page or start an RFC. Keep in mind that the IMDb is not a reliable source. I don't see how it matters which way they're sorted. I will debate "has grossed" vs "had grossed", but I don't think I have it in me to debate sort order. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

As far I am aware there is no guideline on the order, just inclusion. Some sources will list the countries alphabetically, others in order of relevance. Looking at the sources listed above though, the prevailing combination seems to be either UK/Germany or US/Germany so I don't think there is a straightforward answer, and listing them alphabetically while a logical solution could be regarded as misrepresentative of the sources. If you have a copy of the film it is worth checking the copyright notice right at the end which sometimes lists the countries when produced under a co-production deal. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. For The Grand Budapest Hotel, will probably wait until LUMIERE adds the film to its database. The order of countries there seems to be accepted by different parties. Raamin (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say that when sources are inconsistent or contradictory on the matter LUMIERE is the best source to default to since it is surveys different sources and attempts to list the countries in order of importance per [11]. The problem with LUMIERE though is that if often takes well over a year to update its database so sometimes you can have quite a wait. Betty Logan (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Matterhorn 150th anniversary

...at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#Matterhorn 150th anniversary. ZachG (Talk) 17:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Core film list

Hi, So the Core list only has four Stubs left, all of which are currently waiting for a reassessment. I've randomly checked out a few Start-class articles on the list (which I hadn't worked on) and upgraded them to C's, but I think now would be a good time for all of the Stub through C class articles on the list to be reassessed since many of them appear to need it. I suspect that a few Starts may also need to be downgraded.

Personally, I also think that the list should be revised. I think that it should reflect a few films made since 2001, should better reflect the importance of an entire era of films in film history (1890-1910), and should include more experimental/Avant-garde or ethnographic films that are very important historically. Documentaries are also underrepresented. Just my 2 cents.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

All of those films seem to have been expanded enough to qualify for Start-Class, so I updated them accordingly. I agree that the core list needs to be updated, specifically to include a proportionate amount of films from the documentary films and silent films task forces. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The full list is here incase anyone couldn't locate it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at the top documentary films on IMDb [12], shows that NONE of the top 10 are currently included in the core list. Of course, none of the top 10 documentary films currently have articles on Wikipedia (9 of the top 10 were made in 2014-2015), but it's clear that the core list needs to be updated. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yea, if nothing else Harlan County, USA should be included. And films by Wiseman, the Maysles', Pennebaker, etc. But works by Barbara Kopple most of all. And of course, L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat and Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory are unquestionably important.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Just looking over numbers 481 to 500 on the list. Some of them are clearly influential/important (The Producers, I am Cuba, La terra trema, Forbidden Planet) while others appear to simply be popular (Midnight Run, Dead Ringers, Edward Scissorhands). Now a few of these bottom 20 are among my absolute favorites (Kasper Hauser, Cool Hand Luke, Local Hero), but (if some films did indeed need to be cut in order to revise the list) this may be the best/most fair way to do so.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's important that all film categories are subject to the same criteria, so that the core list is based on importance to the project overall, and not on anyone's list of personal favorites. All the films currently on the list appear to be Start-Class or better to me, but the list should probably be completely redone, before demoting any articles already on the list. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, the bulk of the work on the list was done in 2008 and hasn't had much of an update since. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeeeeeeeaaaaaa. Riiiiiiight. But regardless of the horrid and traumatic absence of bright and shiny gold coins that one lucky, starry eyed editor may have hoped would grant them entrance into Willy Wonka's factory and was ever so motivated by.....perhaps it would be beneficial to Wikipedia itself and the NORMAL PEOPLE WHO READ WIKIPEDIA AND WILL NEVER, EVER CARE ABOUT THE EDITORS WHO CONTRIBUTE TO IT if the Core list was updated. It really is just that simple. Bubble popped.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm still looking for that factory. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I have copied the core list to my sandbox per this discussion, and will update it based on the current criteria when I have a chance. All of the links and classes will be updated as well. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Update - I've gone through the TSPDT list, and come up with 392 films that should definitely be on the core list. Most of them are already on the list, but there are some additions, because each regional task force can have up to 10 additional films after the first 250. I'm working on the genre task forces now, which are based on the top 10 films on IMDb in each genre that aren't already on the list, but so far I've only found information for the Animated, Documentary, Silent and War films task forces. Should I just skip the other genre task forces (Christian, Comic book, and Avant-garde), and add films from the TSPDT list to round up to 500 films? Or should I stick to the current criteria, and just add articles from the film awards, film festivals and filmmaking task forces, which will give us 510 articles on the new core list instead of the current number of 530? Fortdj33 (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Another approach is to use the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 tables for each genre task force, and include the top 10 films on each table that are not already on the list. This would eliminate IMDb as a criteria, and allow for all the genre task forces to be included in the core list. Thoughts? Fortdj33 (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is probably best to drop a note at the genre task forces and ask them to update their core lists. If there isn't anyone around to do this then it stands to reason there isn't anyone around to oversee their development, and in that case I would just drop their lists. If the task forces spark into life at some point they can always update their lists then, which won't be possible if we have assigned their slots to other films. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Betty, with all due respect, I see this from the other direction. The current criteria allows for each task force to have 10 additional films on the core list. In the case of the regional task forces, those films are based on the TSPDT list, and the difference is filled in after the first 250, for task forces that don't have 10 additional films on the list. For the genre task forces, those films are supposed to be based on IMDB, but not all of those task forces have a presence on IMDB. Basing it on the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 tables for each genre task force instead, allows for each genre task force to have 10 films the core list. I grant you that not all of the task forces are active, but my thinking is that including films from each task force IS what will spark editors to work on those articles. Otherwise, IMO just filling it with more films from the TSPDT list, just makes the list a popularity contest, and doesn't serve much purpose. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I should add that this seems to be the same method used for the top 10 lists in the film awards, film festivals and filmmaking task forces. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, based on this criteria, here is the revised core list [13], including films for all of the existing task forces. 135 films would need to be removed from the core list, due to additions from the TSPDT list. Please let me know if you have any questions, otherwise I will work on updating the page and all of the related films. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In your current list, the current regional task forces don't all have 10 films - Argentina has 2, Australia has 4, Canada has 6, India has 7, Korea has 2, Mexico has 9, New Zealand has 2, Persian has 7, Southeast Asian has 4, Spain has 9 and Baltic has none. From where do you add those missing films to the core list?--Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The current criteria states that each task force "will receive an additional 10 slots for Core. In the case of national cinemas, the next-highest picks from the TSPDT metalists will be taken first". Therefore, I added any films for those task forces after the first 250, up to 10 films for each task force. However, not all of them had 10 additional films on the the TSPDT list. Therefore, "National task forces with less than ten films on the metalist will have their remaining slots held". The task forces that you mention left 48 open spots on the list, so I just added the next 48 films on the TSPDT list that weren't already included by the task forces. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think adding in the next 48 films on the TSPDT list is missing the point of holding spots for those films as you are adding more films of a different area at the expense of these tasks forces. Basically giving more weight to some parts of the core lists and neglecting other parts - such as the Baltic films which have 0 films on the list. Note that I have no interest here as I'm pretty sure I've watched a couple of Baltic films my whole life, but just pointing out that "holding" spots by giving them away to other films does not really help at all. On that point, I actually agreed with your earlier comment where you said: "my thinking is that including films from each task force IS what will spark editors to work on those articles", which will have the same effect here. If the TSPDT and IMDB can't help determain what films to add, maybe add that national's equivalent of the Academy Awards Best Film awarded films?--Gonnym (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the 48 films "holding" spots, I disagree that it doesn't help the core list. The current core list is just the top 500 films from a previous TSPDT list, and doesn't take the task forces into account at all. My update is taken from the current TSPDT list, and all of the additional films for the regional task forces are also coming from that list. If a regional task force doesn't have enough films on it to warrant 10 additional spots on the core list, IMO it's better to include additional films the TSPDT list, rather than leave those spots blank, which doesn't help the core list at all. If the core list is updated annually from the TSPDT list like it's supposed to be, the regional task forces will always take precedence over any films just holding spots, IF any of them have additional films on the list next year. Otherwise, the core list will still have the number of films from the TSPDT list that it would have had anyway. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it has been a week with no additional input, so I went ahead and updated the core list, which hadn't been brought up to date in 4 years! Any questions or concerns should be discussed here. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge at peer review

Please comment at: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Dilwale_Dulhania_Le_Jayenge/archive1 BollyJeff | talk 13:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Bottom 100

There are 14 articles missing for Bottom 100 IMDb movies (5 of them in the Bottom 10): de:Benutzer:Jobu0101/Die Bottom 100. Look ar the last but one column. --Jobu0101 (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Some of them probably fail Wikipedia:Notability (films). We already have Saving Christmas. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing out the Christmas issue. I'll update the table later appropriately. Do you really think that some of the movies fail notability? In German Wikipedia I don't think so and as you probably know German Wikipedia is much more restrictive concerning notability. --Jobu0101 (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Many of those film exist... you just linked to the wrong title. We don't disambiguate the way you did on your list. You can see our notability guideline at WP:NFILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't link any of those films of which I think that there is no English article. I just wrote "–" instead. So which of those 13 films has an article here? --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:RS/IMDB as well as the fact that voting on films on their website is just a popularity (or lack of) contest. There is nothing critical or scholarly involved in compiling the numbers. Thus, as others have mentioned, just because a film is on that list does not mean that it merits an article here. Although I haven't used the German WikiP if they allow IMDb as a reference, or basis, for their articles then they aren't more restrictive than the English WikiP for notability when it comes to films. MarnetteD|Talk 16:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. After I saw Kod Adı: K.O.Z. and Planet Prince (which is Prince of Space, I think), I think I got confused on the columns. Sorry about that. Birdemic 2 is currently a redirect, which is a bit odd. I can probably create an article for that. I think you're right about the others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As a followup, I created a short article for Birdemic 2: The Resurrection. It's not great, but it'll do. It's got a few reviews, including one by Variety, so it should be relatively safe from deletion. I think there may be more, but I didn't see any offhand in the usual spots. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I updated the list. Now, there are only 10 articles missing. --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I did Surf School, too. I looked at the others, but I don't see enough coverage. Maybe someone else will create them, but I don't think they'd survive AfD. One of them, Brothers in Arms, has a Rotten Tomatoes page with lots of reviews, but almost all of the listed reviews are for a different film of the same title. I think I read somewhere that the Bottom 100 is only open to films that have had a theatrical release, but with a limited release of a few dozen theaters, it's very difficult to find professional reviews. Most of them come from blogs, web forums, YouTube channels, and other sources that en.wp doesn't consider reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

For 2 of the 9 remaining films there is a German article. So it's possible to translate those articles. --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Now it are 3 out of 9 films with a German article. --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

10 films missing now. --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

2001 article is too big:

• Talk:2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)#Article_is_too_big:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This conversation can serve no purpose... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've made a start and trimmed the lead and plot sections. Popcornduff (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It has a plot? That's news to me. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Co-producers in infobox

Hi there! Quentin X and I have a question about {{infobox film}}. Should co-producers be listed on in the infobox? The issue is specifically about Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, which credits two people as co-producers on the official poster. This was previously discussed on my talk page, where I said that only the literal "produced by" credit should be listed. Since I may be misunderstanding the infobox documentation, I figured maybe we should get views here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No. "Co-producers" are not "Producers", just like "Co-executive producers" are not "Executive Producers". Those are different roles, and thus they don't match up for the infobox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Having had a look on the Producers Guild of America website, this is what they say about co-producers: "Co-Producers are two or more functioning producers who perform jointly or cumulatively all of the producer functions as a team or group.". Which seems to suggest that they are producers. Quentin X (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

If that was the case, you wouldn't have a single "co-producer". You'd have multiple names. You also wouldn't separate them out from "Producers" if there were producers. That seems to differ from how they describe it here. The fact that they separate it out suggests that it is a separate job, and thus doesn't qualify with what we are asking for. If they are credited as "Producer" then they are listed. If not, then they shouldn't be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What if the director also produced, so was credited as produced and directed by. The people who produced alongside him would be co-producers. Quentin X (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. The director/producer and other producers are all simply "producers". A co-producer is an entirely different credit. For instance, on Robert Rodriguez's movies, we frequently have to remove "co-produced" from the lead as it implies he served in a different position than he did. Sock (tock talk) 16:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Bucharest (International) Film Festival (redux)

This new article caught my eye triggering something in my memory about it. I then found this AfD. Further input appreciated. Pinging the relevant editors: @Daniel:, @Ymblanter:, @MichaelQSchmidt:, @MarnetteD: and the creator @CheckSpeare:. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Bucharest Film Festival was the hoax article created back in '09 and revealed to be a hoax in Mar '13. A brief glance at this new article seems to have sources that might be legit. At least the claim that the festival is only 9 years old means that it isn't part of the previous nonsense. MarnetteD|Talk 14:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD. Looks like the issue has been resolved with deletion of the article in question for other reasons. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Italics for series titles

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles § Italics for series titles for a discussion on the use of italics for titles of film series. —sroc 💬 05:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Producer/writer/composer filmography navboxes consensus

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Producer/writer/composer filmography navboxes consensus. Comments welcome. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've started an RfC at ‎Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RFC: Filmography navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Creator template RFC

Be advised that there is an WP:RFC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#RFC:_Filmography_navboxes with the intent of creating a general rule to support deleting templates at Category:Film producer navigational boxes, Category:Film writer navigational boxes, Category:Television producer templates, Category:Television creator templates, and Category:Television writer templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Infobox film and Infobox television film

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_25#Template:Infobox_television_film. Betty Logan (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Filmography?

Dear film experts: I have seen a lot of filmographies that are lists of films that a specific person has been involved in. Recently I came across a page that was a long list of film adaptations of a specific story. Would this be referred to as a filmography? Or should it be a "List of" article? The second option would need a reference or an article for every item. Do discographies need the same? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster word definition says film figure or topic, while the Oxford English one lists people or "any particular theme". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Since you haven't given a specific example I am not sure if what I am adding is of any use. The WikiP-article that I always think of in this situation is The Three Musketeers in film. I like this wording slightly better that "List of" but that is just me. As to discographies you might want to ask at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. There might be other projects that could help but I am not sure which ones. Other editors might have better suggestions. MarnetteD|Talk 04:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I am sorry, I am so used to working with music articles that I wrote "discography" instead of "filmography". I found some old content under a redirect and decided to extend it. There wasn't any article to point to at the time, but I have since moved it to Hedda Gabler (filmography). It doesn't have much information yet, but I added some sources. It likely should have at least a sentence or two about each film. This story certainly has attracted a lot of attention from filmmakers. I like your "in film" suggestion better, though; maybe it should be moved.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I know what you are talking about Anne Delong my fingers get so used to typing certain words or phrases that I have to grind the gears (do cars even do that anymore?) when typing about something slightly different. If it were me I would definitely move the HG article that you are working on. I would either use "HG in film" or another option is "HG on screen" - per this Hamlet on screen. Again others might have more suggestions for you. MarnetteD|Talk 06:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(Over)categorically a problem?

Category:Screenplays by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, sure; Category:Films produced by Hal B. Wallis, no problem; Category:Film scores by Bernard Herrmann, okay. But do we really need Category:Screenplays by Rodney Dangerfield, Category:Films produced by Ben Affleck, Category:Film scores by Alex Paul? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarityfiend - I missed this post when I replied to the one below - my apologies. I've noticed this pattern of editing in the last several weeks as well. To my eye this looks like an editor who has found a niche that makes them happy. Some (more than?) of these are definite overcats. One possibility is to point then to WP:CATDEF. IMO something like the "produced by Ben Affleck" is not a defining feature of those films. OTOH I find that aspect of CATDEF gets ignored all too often. CFD may be the way to go but I know that can be a hassle. Maybe others will have better suggestion. MarnetteD|Talk 05:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't get no respect! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You do from some of us L - well occasionally anyway :-) Turns out that the cats you list weren't created recently :Clarityfiend so my mistake to compare them. OTOH they currently (down the road Ben might have enough films but not at this time) bump up against WP:SMALLCAT. MarnetteD|Talk 07:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

These categories are so ugly even Uncyclopedia rejected them. (Marnette, Lugnuts was repeating Dangerfield's catchphrase.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I knew that Clarityfiend and I was joking in return. Since we don't get to see each other smile when having fun things can get lost in the reading :-) MarnetteD|Talk 02:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Pornography disputes with regard to referring to pornography stars as "actors"

I see that there is a dispute going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Preferred disambiguator: "actor/actress" or "pornographic actor/actress"? (WP:Permalink here). And I know that some Wikipedia film editors are aware of these disputes. That stated, it seems that more help is needed resolving these matters. For example, there is a current debate going on at Talk:Chloe (pornographic actress)#Requested move 15 March 2015. And per what GregKaye and Necrothesp stated at Talk:Aja (actress)#Requested move 1 March 2015, I have alerted WP:Film to this matter. I will also alert WP:Actor. Flyer22 (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 is this notification being placed at other film related pages or just here? GregKaye 08:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, what other "film related pages" are you referring to? I've alerted WP:Film and WP:Actor. What other film WikiProject should I alert? Flyer22 (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 fantastic, I had only got a ping from this page. You have done a better job than I have did in at least one issue in the past and I thought I'd check. GregKaye 09:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see the current discussions at Talk:Cytherea (pornographic actress)#Requested move 27 April 2015 and Talk:Hillary Scott (pornographic actress)#Requested move 27 April 2015. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Metafictional films

Category:Metafictional films has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Duck (film)

I have created a section that cover's the film's plot in this article. If you have seen the 2005 film starring Philip Baker Hall, I encourage that you please peer review my contributions and edits in case I made any mistakes.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Southeastern Film Critics Association

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southeastern Film Critics Association has been extended in order to solicit more editors' opinions. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion

Talk:Erik Rhodes (actor) → Erik Rhodes (non-pornographic actor) In ictu oculi (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae (film)

Tenebrae is a very old (2006) FA; there has been an attempt (see article talk) to bring it to current FA standards without the need for a Featured article review. Could knowledgeable film folk have a look? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Accolade Competition for deletion

WikiProject Film: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Accolade Competition is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted as non-notable. As members of this project, your input may be especially valuable.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accolade Competition until a consensus is reached, hopefully within the next seven days, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion should focus on high-quality evidence and on our policies and guidelines.

Anyone is encouraged to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, please do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 17:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Aaaaaaand that's now over. Adios, Accolades. KDS4444^Talk 19:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Plot bloat at Ex Machina (film) article

Help is needed with plot bloat at Ex Machina (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 147.26.87.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been reverted multiple times on adding plot information to that article. I haven't seen the film yet, and I'm doing what I can to not be spoiled on it (that obviously includes not reading the Plot section). Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I've heard that this is a film you will not want to be spoiled on. Flyer22 (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: Thanks to BullRangifer for helping, but the IP simply switched IPs and went at it again (well, if that's the same person and not one of my stalkers screwing with me). I'll wait until I see this film before I take further action to trim that plot section and do better to keep it that away. That is, if someone doesn't beat me to that first. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

More eyes needed at The Rock (film)

I could use additional opinions or editorial assistance regarding edits such as this, which I don't believe improve the article. It's escalating into an edit-war, so either support for my edits or someone telling me I'm out of line for reverting the additions would be most appreciated! DonIago (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

May the Force be with you

Please see this discussion, on whether the phrase "May the Force be with you" still needs to have its own article or not. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Orlando Bloom back for Dead Men Tell No Tales

Variety, one of the sites more reliable sources, announced Orlando Bloom is returning as Will Turner in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. There's an editor who feels Variety isn't reliable enough. Anyone have any thoughts? Rusted AutoParts 21:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: the discussion is on Talk:Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_Dead_Men_Tell_No_Tales#Orlando_Bloom. Lapadite (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pan: Credit woes

Hey all. Quicky: What's the preferred way to present cast for Pan (2015 film)? Theatrical poster here. Names across the top read: Hugh Jackman, Garrett Hedlund, Rooney Mara, Levi Miller. Then in the billing block: Hugh Jackman, Garrett Hedlund, Rooney Mara and Amanda Seyfried—where did the kid who plays Pan go? I know we usually prefer the billing block for credits, but in this case it seems counter-intuitive because the kid is missing.

Would it make sense to start with the people across the top, then tack on Amanda Seyfried? Like: Hugh Jackman, Garrett Hedlund, Rooney Mara, Levi Miller, Amanda Seyfried

Tanx!

Oh, P.S., if any of you like to solve billing puzzles, I invite you to the exciting world of Bollywood cinema, where billing blocks are not used, and editors war over which poster allows them to put their favorite actor first in the infobox. Oh yeah. I'm totes srs! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

If someone has prominent billing on the official poster but doesn't appear in the billing block, I'd include them. If there's a tedious dispute over billing, then it's probably easier to just default to the billing block, like the rule says. Otherwise, the dispute will go on forever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I would probably go with just the billing block for the infobox (at least until the film comes out) since that is supposed to reflect the actual credits but mention the actor who plays "Pan" in the lead. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good solution, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Boffo'd box office

I was just looking at the "Snow White" page, & it got me thinking (again): is it really a good idea to include the total earnings (lifetime) on a film under "box office"? Shouldn't that be a separate category/listing from its earnings on initial release? I, for one, don't think of "total lifetime earnings" when I think about, say, "GWTW"'s box office, & if I'm looking for just what it earned on initial release (& don't know it's not broken out), how do I know which films have lifetime included & which don't? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The total in the infobox should include the "lifetime gross" from all releases, because ultimately that is what the film has grossed. If a film has had several releases ideally there should be a breakdown of the financial history in the film's box-office section. This is actually both the case with Gone with the Wind (see Gone with the Wind (film)#Box office) and at Snow White (see Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937 film)#Original theatrical run and Re-releases). Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

♠Fair enough. A note in the infobox would IMO still be warranted in such cases; I would not have thought to look through the whole article (since all I wanted was the earnings at release).

♠BTW, the earnings/top films listings by year are hopelessly confused... Looking just at 1936 & 1937, I saw positions obviously not supported by the film pages' box office numbers, with films in between having no (WP page) earnings mentioned in the infoboxes at all & AFAICT none mentioned. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the annual listings are not fit for purpose. I do have a book of the Variety's domestic top tens from 1940 up to 1990, and BOM has charts from 1980 onwards so I can probably fix those at some point, but fixing the charts prior to 1940 won't be a trivial task. It is also worth bearing in mind that the worldwide gross goes in the infobox if available, while the earlier charts pre-2000 are generally "domestic" top tens, simply because worldwide data was sketchy until Box Office Mojo came on the scene, so there isn't always a direct correllation between the figure in the infobox and the figure in the chart. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the effort in any event. I do understand it's not a trivial matter, & I wouldn't raise it at all if it hadn't tripped me up in trying to get any boxoffice numbers for the '30s. (At one time, BOM did, IIRC, have some from the '30s & '40s, but they've since disappeared... :( ).

I do understand there's not always a correlation between infoboxes & yearly listings (tho, if there's no number available, I have to wonder how the ranking was arrived at...), but that's aside the simple & obvious mistakes where there are numbers. It also appears (in some cases) there's conflict between the film page & the year page, with different (sourced) figures at each (not to mention conflict between offline & online sources)...& that's one I'm not even going to begin to try & sort out. Nor do I envy anybody trying.

The major reason I'd rather see the infobox number be domestic only always is to simplify things for the casual reader (to keep it simple across all years & all films), or somebody (like I was) who only wants that tidbit, to keep it simple across all years & all films. Just making that change, I appreciate, would not be a simple task... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes external links

Resolved

I do not know if anyone has addressed this issue already, but there are many film articles (I will use The Quick and the Dead for example) that have Rotten Tomatoes external links that lead to this when they should lead to this instead. Again, if this is no news to anyone already please ignore this message and I sincerely apologize.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that's because of the latest revision, which causes it to use protocol relative URLs. The https version doesn't render properly in Firefox on my system. I'm guessing that's a problem on their end, but who knows. I use a few extensions that screw around with the HTML, such as flashblock and adblock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, in Explorer, I get a "show all content?" popup from the first link & the full page from the second. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't get it render properly in IE, Firefox or Opera. I am going to revert the change and we can take it from there. Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It turns out the template is protected so I have requested a revert. I hope that is ok with everyone. Betty Logan (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems resolved now. According to the template editor who reverted the change, it was on RT's end. Once RT fixes their site, we can re-enable the option in the template. For the technically minded, it was because they were sending mixed active content, a combination of secure and insecure content over a secure connection. Modern browsers block the insecure content, making the page unusable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Double features

Do advertisements for double features explicitly mention that the 2 films are shown as double feature. I cam across this ad for Strictly Dishonorable and Tokyo File 212. Is this a double bill ad?--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment Template:X-Men media

Your comment is requested at Template talk:X-Men media#Short titles. --Izno (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ananconda and Lake Placid series

Eyes would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaconda (film series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake Placid (film series), Talk:Anaconda (film series)#Requested move 11 May 2015, Talk:Lake Placid (film series)#Requested move 11 May 2015 and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 26#‎Horror film series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Article on a popular film needs attention

There's a bit of peacock wording being repeatedly reinserted in Mad Max: Fury Road. It ranges from the comparatively tame "critics raved" to "critical acclaim" to the obviously untrue "universal acclaim". I'm already probably past 3RR from cleaning up the various MOS violations and such, so attention from other editors would be helpful. There's been a little bit of discussion on the talk page, too. The reviews have been undeniably very positive, but I think that we need to keep in mind WP:NPOV, WP:TONE, and WP:WTW. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I burned through my 3RR quota too earlier in the day. I've left comments on the talk page, but other than that there isn't much else I can do until tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I've chimed in. If the IP (or whomever) isn't participating in discussion, I'd go with page protection. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've requested protection. The IP keeps hopping, so warnings aren't going to help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

My page protection was initially denied. I asked for another look because I think the admin response didn't consider the scope. [14]. More eyes still needed at the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Barnyard nation(s) of origin

Hey all, I just added Germany as an origin nation for Barnyard (film) based on this reference. I'm a little uncertain about it though, since the companies listed, O Entertainment, Nickelodeon and Paramount are not German companies. It looks like the copyright claimant is a German entity, though. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of discussion on the categorisation of fictional universes at WikiProject Comics

If interested please join discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Propose developing umbrella categories and navigations according to "Fictional universes in literature", "Fictional universes in film" and "Fictional universes in television programming". GregKaye 18:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Mention of non-notable awards in pornography articles

There is a discussion on how to address non-notable awards in pornography articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Mention_of_non-notable_awards_in_articles. We'd appreciate help creating consensus on when and how such awards are mentioned in pornography biographies and related articles. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

So now there is a discussion going at 3 places. Cut off a limb, and two more shall take its place. --Gonnym (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Citizen Kane/archive2

Citizen Kane, which is listed as a core article for this project, has been put up for Peer review. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Citizen Kane/archive2. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The Projection List

Is The Projection List a reliable source for release dates? I don't see the release date for this film reported anywhere. It isn't even on IMDb. Lapadite (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Never mind on the film, whose release date has now been announced with Cannes reports. Still would like to know if the site is reliable though. Lapadite (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae FAR

I have nominated Tenebrae (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Gods of Egypt

The usage and primary topic of "Gods of Egypt" is under discussion, see talk:Gods of Egypt (film) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Redundant stub tags

Please see this discussion regarding film stub tags. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Currency converters for Box Office Mojo gross

OK, I've got a bit of an issue. Harka1998 (talk · contribs) is apparently using a currency converter at The Falling (film) to convert the data from Box Office Mojo into local currency. Obviously, Box Office Mojo uses American dollars. So, for non-American films, should we report the gross in American dollars or allow the use a currency converter? I self-reverted my last revert to the article, as I'm tired of going back and forth on this. I attempted to discuss the matter on Harka1998's talk page to no avail. I'm hoping that maybe we can actually get some kind of consensus here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh well. I guess this is another of those things that only NinjaRobotPirate cares about. Alright, I'll just ignore it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, I would use this instead of Box Office Mojo. Probably will need to update it until the end of its theatrical run. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You can actually get the sterling edition of the weekend charts at Box Office Mojo, which removes the OR dimension. As for which currency should be used I would try to source the gross in the native currency where possible. To give an example, you will see that Paddington (film) has the budget listed in euros with a dollar conversion in brackets afterwards (sources for both figures in the porduction section); that is because the film was actually funded in euros and the dollar figure is completely ephemeral i.e. it depends on the exchange rate. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot that you could get local currency at BOM. With that and the BFI charts, we should have plenty of sourcing available for local currency. I hope that's an acceptable solution for Harka1998. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Input requested

This is to request to any and all editors for their input and thoughts at this thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Consensus clairification. MarnetteD|Talk 23:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Filipino film page moves

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

More genre BS - Mad Max: Fury Road

Hey all, a few days ago I was attempting to find sources for the genre in the lead at Mad Max: Fury Road because people kept tweaking it, adding and removing "thriller" etc. Rotten Tomatoes designates the film as action-adventure and horror. The horror has been removed a few times, including here with an explanation "too much of stretch to call it horror. Gonna need better sources than Rotten Tomatoes" (as if that would be *my* problem) or here, sneakily and silently. I haven't seen the film, so I don't have a POV on this. There's no indication that RT gets its genre content from non-reliable sources (the way that Metacritic gets that info from IMDb) so I'm not sure why it wouldn't be considered reliable for this purpose. Anyhow, any interference by you hard-working film people would be appreciated. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about any of that but there's no way Mad Max is a horror film. If so it certainly isn't the primary genre and only the primary genre should be included, which is action.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be best to start a discussion on the talk page. In truth we can probably source any number of fringe genres so it's really a WP:WEIGHT issue. Rotten Tomatoes regards it as an action-adventure & horror film; Allmovie considers it an action film (placing it in the action-thriller and road movie sub-genres); The New York Times list it as an action and adventure film while the BBFC have it under drama and action. The one constant in all the sources is "action", so I would just keep it simple and go with "action film". I certainly don't think we should include "horror" since most sources don't regard it as one. Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Okee. Happy to yield. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The lead portion of horror film would suggest this is not a horror film. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

To pile on, it's worth looking at media coverage, not just database websites. Basically, none of the coverage uses "horror" in connection with the film. Databases will list genres indiscriminately, so it should be combined with coverage to identify the relevant genre(s) out of a batch. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, I try not to source pages that are on subjective topics (like genre) if they don't credit in author. That way, we at least have an idea that's it's not just arbitrarily posted. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Should there be a page for popcorn flick?

I notice this term gets used frequently, but there's no page for it. Is there any potential for any stub beyond simply a definition? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems like it would be synonymous with blockbuster (entertainment). There's not really much about the term directly. I found this, but nothing more, really. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Redirect? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Toby Story

This story makes no since stop asking me edit this piece of garbage, yes it does have a lot of errors how bout I fix some of it and call it good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParaAnn27 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Tobi (1978 film) is the article in question. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@ParaAnn27: It’s a movie, a work of fiction about a fictional character. Please see MOS:FICTION for advice on writing encyclopedically about fiction. And if you’re not familiar with the movie, please refrain from editing the plot summary in such a manner. Also, who was asking you to edit it? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A Letter to Momo

Hey, I'm planning to expand and clean up A Letter to Momo for a potential GA assessment. The discussion is Talk:A Letter to Momo#Good article push. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The IMDB has Germany down as well, so there has probably been some Gemran input along the way (most likely the production company used a German tax shelter if no-one actually speaks German in it). The American Film Institute is certainly a reliable source though, so to pull Germany we'd need to see what other sources say on the subject. Betty Logan (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

MaryJanice Davidson review at the Ex Machina (film) article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Ex Machina (film)#Reception: MaryJanice Davidson. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. For those who don't want to be spoiled on this film, the review is a bit spoilerish. Flyer22 (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant that the MaryJanice Davidson text in the article is a bit spoilerish; the review is a complete spoiler. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Chinese films

I've had a discussion with a user about not including the Chinese film categories for Hong Kong film productions. My reasoning is that in the industry, Hong Kong is noticed seperately. They nominate seperate films for foreign oscar nominations, they have their own distinct style, they have their own broad censorship rules, and within the industry they are recognized seperately. For example, see here: on Film Business Asia] (and here). There is tons of research explaining why they are kept seperate. This goes beyond film of course, such as why China and Hong Kong are kept seperate in the Olympics and other things.

So I'd suggest we keep them seperate still. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've always kept them seperate when I've worked on articles for both countries (mainly around the Foreign Language Oscar noms). I see no good reason to not do this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to keep them separate. Hong Kong films are already subcategories of Chinese films, so it's a bit redundant to both listed. If there's a serious objection to the existence of the HK categories, they should probably be brought to CFD. My guess is the discussion would result in a snow keep after a day. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Walt Disney Company listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Walt Disney Company to be moved to Disney. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Joker (comics) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Joker (comics) to be moved to The Joker (character). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Gods of Egypt (film) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gods of Egypt (film) to be moved to Gods of Egypt. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Google Play Movies listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Google Play Movies to be moved to Google Play Movies & TV. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Anaconda (film series) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Anaconda (film series) to be moved to Anaconda (franchise). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Randy Newman

Per this earlier discussion, should we be including films scored by Randy Newman in his navbox? Input requested at Template talk:Randy Newman#Films scored. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Newman is a film composer, not an actor. Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The removal of non notable awards on film articles

I will try to keep my argument short and sweet and to the point. I have always found it logical to remove film awards that do not have their own article from a films/actors/lists page and have cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE in doing so. For example: When the Chlotrudis Society Awards and the Phoenix Film Critics Society pages were deleted, they were subsequently removed from articles that they were linked in. Which makes sense, if they aren't notable enough for an article then why would you want them in a films or actors article? Then every Tom, Dick and Harry award would be listed. I'm not saying remove the minor awards, JUST the ones that don't have their own article. Thoughts? I would love to finally be able to reach a consensus about this. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with LL and I thought we'd reached a consensus on this when it was raised previously? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There was this discussion at the MOS page which seemed to reach this consensus. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think MOS:FILM was ever updated to reflect consensus. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm speaking outside my area of expertise (film awards), but I know something about literary awards. There are a lot of literary awards and generally whenever I see one that doesn't have an article I'll make an attempt to create an article. This is ultimately easier. Of course the award will need to be mentioned in multiple reliable sources to avoid an AfD but typically that is not a problem (except for very new awards). Maybe the film world is different with many "festival" type awards. However with literary awards it's different and I think it would be a mistake to delete refs to red links as often they are notable but no one has bothered to create an article. If the MOS is updated it probably should reflect the film/TV industry. -- GreenC 13:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The awards that I am specifically talking about had articles, went through AfD and were deleted. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

From my understanding, the consensus was — and the Film Project editors in this discussion all agree that a consensus was reached — that if an organization wasn't notable enough to have an article, we do not list its awards. Which is perfectly logical: Awards from a non-notable organization are by definition non-notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

So long as it's limited to MOS:FILM it's fine with me. Often these things happen in two phases. The first is establish consensus concerning a change needs to be made. The second is propose specific changes to the documentation - how exactly is MOS:FILM going to be worded? The wording can be controversial, even if everyone agrees it should be done in general. Start a new thread with the proposed wording, and back it up with a link to the previous discussion showing general consensus for a change. If it was an RfC it would have a lot more weight, and would be closed/implemented by an admin. You could also start a short essay page describing the issues and guideline and aggregate all the links to old discussions and give it a short easy to remember name like WP:FILMAWARDS. -- GreenC 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to conclude any one of those discussion saying consensus was reached? I have another editor over at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Cate Blanchett making a stink about it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae, there was no such consensus, and you should know that since you initiated those discussions and proposals, here and here. Lady Lotus}, I'm making "a stink" about it because the guidelines do not say they cannot be referenced in an awards article. There was no consensus and the guidelines weren't changed. Lady Lotus, you've ignored the guidelines I linked that contradict your assertion and have gone ahead and deleted it despite them. Lapadite (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a consensus has been reached, it's just not official yet. Everybody except you has agreed that awards that do not have their own article should be removed, mainly because it's the logical thing to do and also it adds undue weight to articles. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't been reached in actuality, evidenced here and in previous linked discussions. Plus, like I said below, a guideline needs to be changed for a consensus to be official. Lapadite (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

And with this discussion, not talking about a guideline being changed, there is a general consensus. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

GreenC, I'm sure such literary awards should also be removed if the main article was deleted through AFD. Same for those who never had articles beforehand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that supports that. In fact policy overrides it - content that is sourced can be included. The notability guideline only applies to topic level (if an article should exist or not). It doesn't apply to content within articles. Trying to end-run around policy with a misguided MOS guideline to exclude whole categories of perfectly reasonable content across the entire project, it's not supportable. You can make a heuristic (rule of thumb), a softly worded suggestion, that's how the proposal originally started but the discussion then turned more absolute about excluding all non-notable film awards (regardless of previous AfD), then someone else said to stop anyone trying to create an award article(!), and now it's growing to include all awards on Wikipedia not just film awards. If there is consensus I don't know what it is - at best it looks like there is consensus to exclude Film awards which have been previously AfD (ie. established as non-notable) in order to address certain abuses by spammers. -- GreenC 16:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

We're not required to include all verifiable information. Too much indiscriminate information added to the article makes it difficult to read or navigate. Without independent, reliable sources to back up an award, it could very well be considered undue weight to include it. Furthermore, in a standalone list (such as List of accolades received by WALL-E), we are explicitly allowed to limit lists to entries with an article. Nobody in WikiProject Film has proposed that we disallow the creation of articles. WikiProject Film may be leaning toward deletionism these days, but nobody here is that much of an extremist. Furthermore, I really don't think we need an formal RFC to implement consensus on this matter. I have no issue if someone wants to do one, but I don't think it necessary. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Green Cardamom is correct. NinjaRobotPirate, how many awards would = indiscriminate? Presently, that is up to editor discretion. A list of awards page is not indiscriminate when numerous awards from an IMDb page are left off the article. It should be clear that the guidelines do not disallow referencing awards that do not have their own articles (like they do not disallow referencing subjects and topics without their own article) and it should also be clear that - as stated in an older discussion Tenebrae had started (linked above), Wikiprojects do not make their own guidelines. Consensus needs to exist and a guideline needs to be changed to reflect it. Consensus in a Wikiproject, and there's yet to be one here, doesn't override guidelines. I agree with Kww on his comment below; there should be a commited discussion on this for a change, where consensus is reached on what amount = indiscriminate in a list of awards page and/or that awards without articles cannot be referenced in an List of awards articles even if RS' discuss them. And finally have a guideline directly reflect that. Lapadite (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:IINFO about numbers. It says data should be put into proper context and have a citation to an independent source. WP:CSC offers the opportunity to restrict entries to existing articles (or those that can be reasonably expected to have an article). Beyond that, I don't care all that much. And what guideline or policy is being overridden? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, precisely. And right above WP:CSC (a MOS) - which also contains #2 and #3 agreeing with the inclusion of individual entries without articles - is WP:LSC, which broadly states "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." There is WP:NOTESAL, a guideline, which states, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". More to the point, a guideline or MOS change that directly supports the assertion has not occurred. A consensus, should it happen, needs to be followed by a guideline change to support the consensus and become official. Again, Wikiprojects can't make their own guidelines or reinterpret them per a local consensus and demand others abide by it without broader community support and a subsequent guideline change reflecting it. (Lady Louts, please refer to the third paragraph in WP:PROJPAGE). Kww, GreenC, and myself have proposed this moves forward, so it can finally be settled, and a guideline that directly supports a consensus could be linked in edits on list entires. Lapadite (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

We faced a similar issue on music articles years ago, and the result was WP:Record charts and its main subentries, WP:GOODCHARTS, WP:BADCHARTS, and WP:SINGLEVENDOR. There's no strict reason to link "existence of article" to "allowed to be used in other articles", but there is a good reason for editors to discuss which awards make sense to include, reach consensus as to which awards to exclude, and have a central place to document the results.—Kww(talk) 20:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That's cool a good solution. The problem Film awards face is scale, there are a lot of film awards with Wikipedia articles and probably many more without. And it would be Sisyphian since every year new ones are added and old ones removed. -- GreenC 21:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Believe me, there are more record charts than film awards. It's upwards of ten thousand.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There might be a technical fix to include the awards and keep it from cluttering the article. For example create a curated visible list with the important awards, and a second collapsed list with the goal of being a complete list of awards. In the end it should be up to the editors how to do it, but something like this is perfect for a MOS solution .. telling editors how to best structure the data, rather then disallowing them from adding something they would like (ie. a complete list of awards). -- GreenC 21:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that's what the link to the IMDb is for. Film articles naturally collect cruft, and they need to be regularly pruned of excessive plots, comprehensive cast lists, non-notable awards, and reviews by bloggers. I don't think the solution is to push the questionable data into a ghetto. Wikipedia is never going to be as comprehensive as inclusionists want, but they need not wail and gnash their teeth; we still link to databases and other sites that collect the information that Wikipedia has seen fit to exclude. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Lady Lotus has continued removing sourced information, disregarding lack of guideline change, [15]; e.g., Sydney Theatre Critics Award, a prominent theater award is reported by multiple RS such as Crikey, The Sydney Morning Herald, Broadwayworld.com, Playbill, National Institute of Dramatic Art, ABC, Hollywood Walk of Fame, The New Yorker. Lapadite (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Those are all good edits by Lady Lotus. They're all (currently) non-notable award ceremonies. So what if they are covered in the press? An example I've used before is that I could set up my own film festival, get a couple of local newspapers to cover it (which wouldn't be too hard - you should see some of the rubbish they do cover) and award Ms. Blanchett some token awards. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Claims of site-wide consensus are nonsense. Editors are encouraged to use the article talk page to decide what is appropriate for that article. -- GreenC 23:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just about to say the same thing. When it comes to article by article basis, a consensus for that page is appropriate. There doesn't have to be a guideline change in order to make that consensus official, it's whatever was discussed on that talk page. And the general consensus Lapadite77 over at List of awards and nominations received by Cate Blanchett was to remove to non notable awards. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The removal of non-notable awards has been the default position at the Film project for quite a while now so Lady Lotus's edits are consistent with that. While WP:CSC may not be a site-wide policy it is unequivocally a WP:Local consensus on film award articles and sections. If there were a clear consensus on the talk page to include a particular award which was at odds with the general understanding here at the project I most likely would not go against that, but the way I see it the onus is on the editor arguing for inclusion to obtain a consensus first. Betty Logan (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Betty, Lugnuts, see my comment above (with some added words):

And right above WP:CSC (a MOS) - which also contains #2 and #3 agreeing with the inclusion of individual entries without articles - is WP:LSC, which broadly states "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." There is WP:NOTESAL, a guideline, which states, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". More to the point, a guideline or MOS change that directly supports the assertion has not occurred. A local consensus, should it happen, needs to be followed by a guideline change to support the consensus and become official. Again, Wikiprojects can't make their own guidelines or reinterpret them per a local consensus and demand others abide by it without broader community support and a subsequent guideline change reflecting it. (Lady Louts, please refer to the third paragraph in WP:PROJPAGE: "in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope ... and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional {{essay}}."). Kww, GreenC, and myself have proposed this moves forward, so it can finally be settled, and a guideline that directly supports a consensus could be linked in edits on list entires.

Lugnuts, as Ring Cinema reminded editors in past discussion here, and i'll quote him: "Notability is the standard for deciding if a subject should have its own article. It is definitely not the standard for determining if something belongs in an article. Most of the facts in an article are not by themselves notable but they are necessary to cover the subject at hand. This misunderstanding is chronic so I think those of us who supposedly know what we're doing should not misuse it." They are not good edits. They are now disruptive, POV edits that go against community-wide guidelines, and will be reverted on that basis. Local consensus does not override guidelines that allow information and list entries to be sourced in an article whether or not they have their own articles - which is not a requirement per se. Those of you still claiming this view and reverting should reread and understand the content in the above comment; community guidelines don't currently support your view, or prohibit the contrary. Again, Wikiproject editors don't decree. If you object to that then inquire at the guideline's pages or make a community-wide RFC, ask for third opinion or take it to a DR; they will tell you the same. Lady Lotus should familiarize herself more with relevant guidelines (and stop being disruptive with respect to this), as she's recently made a few misguided edits; with regard to the third edit, see WP:EL, WP:ELYES; the only link that may not meet WP:EL is the Sydney Theatre Company link, probably added because she was CEO & artistic director for some years. See also FAs Bette_Davis#External_links, Katharine_Hepburn#External_links. Lapadite (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 you should also familiarize yourself with the guideline of consensus which has already been reached and for whatever reason, you aren't seeming to grasp. I find you more argumentative and stubborn that really trying to grasp the concept here. You want to just spit out guidelines and policy towards people but keep in mind the WP:FIVEPILLARS, one of them being consensus - Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77 read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:3RR too. You're close to being blocked for the latter. And as for Ring Cinema's opinion. Well, if you can't say anything good about someone, it's best not to say anything at all. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

You're both stubbornly refusing to accept community-wide guidelines not supporting your view, and disregarding the fact -linked twice above now- that you do not make or reinterpret guidelines as you please and expect other to abide by it. Lady Lotus see my response to your comment on my page, and again please keep discussion here. Lady Lotus, for the fourth time, WP:PROJPAGE: projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is no more binding on editors than an advice page written by any single individual editor. Any advice page that has not been formally approved by the community through the WP:PROPOSAL process has the actual status of an optional {{essay}}; WP:CONLIMITED: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of pages. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Considering you both are pushing a view not presently supported by community-wide consensus, i.e., guidelines, you need to create a RFC or consult the guidelines' talk pages. Take it to DR as well if you wish. Lapadite (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I feel like I'm talking to a wall. We are not trying to reinterpret guidelines. Nobody has said that. Nobody is trying to do that. This is a discussion to get consensus to remove non notable awards or not. And consensus shows that pretty much everyone except you agrees with and has a logical argument to remove them. That is consensus. And that's what has happened. There is no need for RFC, only if a consensus could not be reached, which is has. This whole "community-wide consensus" isn't flying here and won't because it's bogus. The ONLY ownership I see is you over at Cate Blanchett. Your territorial behavior and stubbornness towards this discussion shows that. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

"I feel like I'm talking to a wall". Precisely. Especially when the relevant guidelines contradicting your local consensus parroting is bolded. Of course, in your mind reverting your disruption based on pushing a local view not supported by commnity-wide consensus is ownership. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not an argument, and certainly, however many others were to locally agree with you, it does remotely not overrule community guidelines. Which you don't seem to understand. Lapadite (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I’d just like to say that I have had very similar feelings to you towards a couple of the editors you’re arguing against here, Lapadite. But I also have to say that I agree with them here; if an award isn’t notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, it’s fair to say that it’s not notable enough for inclusion in a given article—unless several reliable sources make a big deal of this particular subject receiving that particular award (i.e. it’s notable that the actor/movie/etc. won it). If it doesn’t seem to bear mentioning much anywhere outside of ultra-comprehensive lists and primary sources, it’s likely just a piece of trivia that doesn’t bear mentioning here. And I’d say that goes for any tidbit of trivia in any article, not just in WP:FILM.

I feel like I should point out that I’m not saying all factoids on Wikipedia must be “notable.” I’m saying they should be about notable things, if they’re not big deals in and of themselves. If an RS claims in passing that a given celebrity has a close friendship with Jimothy Joneson (not a notable person), there’s no reason for us to mention it anywhere; if it claims a close friendship with the POTUS (very notable person), that should absolutely be included. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

DRN discussion

Opened one here. Lapadite (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do items, such as awards in "List of awards and nominations" articles, need to have their own WP article in order to be included in List articles? Some relevant guidelines and MOS: WP:NLISTITEM, WP:NOTESAL, WP:LSC, WP:FAILN, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Verifiability. Lapadite (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying: This is not a proposal for a guideline change, but a request for comment on whether the present guidelines state that lists items are required to have their own articles to be included in a list. Given that some editors at the Wikiproject assert that they do and if they don't they are deleted (which has become a systematic practice), I'm interested in other editors' comments on what the guidelines state with regards to this (which to my mind are clear enough - they do not state that, in fact they allow the opposite). The aim is to get a proper consensus for the WIkiproject based on the present guidelines. I personally think the support/oppose structure here confuses things. If anyone wishes to propose a guideline change they are free to do so in a separate section. Lapadite (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarifying: This is about List articles, not film articles; e.g., List of awards and nominations received by an actor or film. Lapadite (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Three editors (Tenebrae, Lady Lotus, Lugnuts) in the above discussion say that the Wikiproject has a consensus that if an award/organization does not have its own WP article it cannot be added to a List article even if it is reliably sourced. Such consensus does not exist per the links given in the discussion, this and this (the latter a proposal to change the MOS, which was not accepted). It was also pointed out that editors of Wikiprojects do not make their own guidelines or reinterpret them as wished and demand others abide by it, per WP:CONLIMITED, WP:PROJPAGE. Lady Lotus has cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE as the reason for removing items without articles, thereby claiming it states items need their own article in order to be included in a list, if not the list is an indiscriminate one. It does not state that. On the contrary, when numerous awards, particularly those of very minor to no importance per lack of RS coverage (such as non-state awards), are left off List of awards articles, it is not an indiscriminate list. WP:INDISCRIMINATE also does not state a threshold. The primary point, is the guidelines linked in the RfC do not directly support the notion asserted here. Sourced awards are relevant to List of awards articles; WP:NOTESAL even states: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". Lapadite (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The consensus being referred to is that editors in the discussion agreed WP:CSC is the primary guideline for keeping lists in general from becoming indiscriminate:

Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.

Indiscriminate lists help no one. Even WP:NOTESAL notes, "[E]ditors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)--Tenebrae (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

A directly applicable and relevant "rule" here that bears serious consideration is, from common selection criteria for lists in the above-mentioned WP:CSC:

2. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)

This suggests a "List of secondary awards" or "List of minor awards" or some such, probably as a subsection within a List of awards article, and offers an unambiguous editorial marker for discussing more specific award list-limiting considerations (what is a major vs minor award) should that become an issue for a particular award. Such a well-supported format as "List of minor..." should not need additional editorial scrutiny, providing as it does a simple way for any reasonably relevant content an editor wants to include about a film - and what awards a film has won seems relevant to that film - while avoiding indiscriminate or junk content by clearly indicating what that content is. I don't think we're in the business here of editing content based on editors personal preferences (for example, deciding which of its awards are actually relevant to a film), we simply maintain verifiability and neutral POV, beyond that, any editor should be free to add content, and we collaborate on keeping that content easy to navigate and read. --Tsavage (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose a MOS-level guideline based on notability. When someone explains how I can prove a non-existent article is notable let me know. It's impossible and unfair. Using notability as the criteria for content inclusion isn't how things are done - it's confusing WP:NOTE guideline, which is topic-level only, with WP:V and WP:RS policy, which are content level. Even if it's a previously deleted article that's not a sign as articles get recreated all the time with better sourcing. -- GreenC 22:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, Oppose any guideline that says awards can't be added even with reliable secondary sourcing. -- GreenC 22:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"Using notability as the criteria for content inclusion isn't how things are done - it's confusing WP:NOTE guideline, which is topic-level only, with WP:V and WP:RS policy, which are content level." - precisely. It's not only confusing but violating WP:NLISTITEM. Lapadite (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support having notability as a general criteria for award sections and lists with the caveat that a talk page consensus can override it. Just because something can be sourced does not mean it should necessarily be included per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Which awards to include comes up time and time again so it seems reasonable to have some criteria in regards to which awards should be included, and the notability of an award is a sensible criteria to adopt per WP:CSC. However, notability is not a de facto threshold criteria for inclusion so some care has to be taken not to apply it too stringently: there may extenuating circumstances where it is reasonable to include a non-notable award so such cases should be accommodated if a discussion on the relevant talk page arrives at a consensus that the award has a particular relevance to a particular article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support - If an organization isn't notable, its awards aren't notable. Adding non-notable awards is the very essence of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support If it's not notable enough for its own article then it shouldn't be included in an awards list, otherwise you'd be listing every Tom, Dick and Harry award claiming to be relevant their career. LADY LOTUS • TALK 00:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Betty/Tenebrae's arguments. Also to note that our notability guidelines do allow discrimination in lists based on notability even those this is a content-level choice. This is done often for lists of persons to avoid flooding a list with non-notables. Same should be done for non-notable film awards. --MASEM (t) 00:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Question What does this proposal mean? I find its wording too unclear to make a judgement upon. It is fundamental to lists that they allow items not having articles and not meeting WP:N individually to be included in that list, when appropriate. We should definitely not change that (at almost any scope). It is also always going to be the case that a list item, should sourcing be required, can be sourced inline in that article without requiring its own linked article. Accepting those two observations, what's left?

If this proposal is merely "Bodies issuing film awards need to meet WP:N as an organisation before their awards belong in a list of awards" (a view that I could accept), then that's much narrower than the simple proposal statement has it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Andy. That's how I read it. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The risk with that is that it's then a gift to future editors, some of whom will not be entirely GF, to delete list entries bearing no relation to the intended scope here with the claimed justification "There was massive support for this as a policy change". Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Andy, this is not a proposal, but a request for comment on whether the present guidelines state that lists items are required to have their own articles to be included in a list. Given that some editors at the Wikiproject assert that they do and if they don't they are deleted (which has become a systematic practice), I'm interested in other editors' comments on what the guidelines state with regards to this (which to my mind are clear enough - they do not state that, in fact they allow the opposite). The aim is to get a proper consensus for the WIkiproject based on the present guidelines. I personally think the support/oppose structure here confuses things. If anyone wishes to propose a guideline change they are free to do so in a separate section. Lapadite (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - We've been running into similar issues in the Wikipedia Pornography Project for quite a few years now. The main issue there usually is:

Should lists of awards & award nominations in adult performer BLPs be limited to just award ceremonies that have Wikipedia articles (blue links) or not? In more recent years, the PORNBIO inclusion standard has been tightened to not include any award nominations - only major award wins from award ceremonies that have their own Wikipedia articles are considered towards a person's notability under PORNBIO.

I personally have never had a problem with listing both awards & award nominations for blue-linked award ceremonies in Wikipedia articles, but I think I've come around more recently to the idea that red-linked award ceremony awards & award nominations should likely be excluded from adult performer BLPs, since they are likely to never add any real notability to any of those Wikipedia articles. Can those kind of red-linked awards & award nominations be properly sourced in any Wikipedia article? Of course they can, but I guess one has to draw the line somewhere. Guy1890 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy1890, this RfC is about items in List articles, specifically List of awards and nominations articles. Wouldn't want the discussion to veer off into commentary on awards in BLPs, or film articles for that matter. If anyone wants to discuss awards in BLPs or film articles please create a new section so this doesn't get muddled (as many RfCs here tend to become). Lapadite (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, and the Pornography Project has not many, but a few of these kind of list articles as well. Those specific types of articles only seem to crop up when an individual performer's awards & award nominations become "too long" for inclusion in their own BLP, which is a very similar issue IMO. Guy1890 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support Per Betty, LL, et al. Here's Lapadite77's failed DRN. All down the forum shop! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Bad form to make accusations that you don’t know what they mean… Taking the next step in dispute resolution after you refused to participate is not forum shopping. That term implies there was some kind of outcome. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support As others have already pointed out. Adding non-notable awards adds nothing to an article. --Gonnym (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: It would help if we knew the exact situation(s) you were talking about. Wikipedia has a pretty low threshold as to articles on a specific award, so except on a case-by-case basis I'd say if the award hasn't got an article yet, or isn't notable enough for an article, then it sure as heck doesn't need to be spamming up a famous person's/film's list of awards and nominations. If you think an award should be mentioned in an article, write the article about that award first. Per WP:WTAF. Otherwise, I think it counts as spam/self-promotion, which is prohibited. Softlavender (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Gonnym and Softlavender: see Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Lapadite (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

They do for list articles and other lists and listed items such as names, or film/actor awards. And you have not yet told us what situations you are talking about. Therefore, all I can say is, no, don't spam an awards list article with non-noteworthy awards. WP:WTAF. Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender to my knowledge, this is the article that started this whole conversation after another editor tried to remove several awards including Central Ohio Film Critics Association, and Georgia Film Critics Association. There was a discussion on the talk page and after another discussion here, I removed the awards in this edit including the previous two and Las Vegas Film Critics Society, Oklahoma Film Critics Circle, Phoenix Film Critics Society, SESC Film Festival and Sydney Theatre Critics Circle Newcomer Award. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, as I said in the discussion that spawned the RfC, and suggested in the Rfc, it particularly concerns all List of awards articles that are sourced; the deletion of items without articles is across the board, by, in particular, Lady Lotus. WP:NLISTITEM is clear; "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content"; not sure what you're claiming there. Lapadite (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

As WP:NOTESAL notes, "[E]ditors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." That's exactly what this RfC is about: Trying to reach a consensus for this. Which editors here seem largely in favor of. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTESAL states, "Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable ... Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." WP:NLISTITEM states: "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". WP:LSC (Selection criteria) states: "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." All I see is "support" comments deliberately ignoring such statements in the guidelines, one even citing an essay. Lapadite (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• No. I think respondents here would do better to !vote Yes or No, rather than Support or Oppose. Anyway, my own opinion on this is that awards that mean anything substantial tend to be WP:notable enough to meed Wikipedia’s standards. I wouldn’t say that an award must have its own article to merit inclusion in a list, but it should at least be notable enough for its own article. There should be evidence that people have heard of it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose partially per GreenCardanom futher up. But also due one of the basics of WP editing, that is in doubt our content has to follow what (reliable and reputable) external sources say and summarize that. So if such sources consider it worthwhile to mention a particular award, so can or even should the WP article. Sources cannot be overridden by the taste of WP editors.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We want to be summarizing what secondary sources say for the most part and while primary sources are sometimes okay, we have to avoid the promitional side that can happen here. When publication X gives a film "X's Film of the Year" award, that's a primary source, and that's a large problem here, and without any type of means to discriminate , you can get a bunch of plain self-promotion. (Case in point in the area of video games, we constantly have problems with editors from small sites that want to promote their site putting their site's review or award in a game article, but we have to remove those these). Now, not every award a film gets is documented in secondary sources, but when the awards themselves are documented in this nature (eg meeting WP:N) then noting an award won that way is okay. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Working consensus has been reached on this point in the past. The indiscriminate listing of insignificant awards from non-notable award givers violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is incompatible with the function of an encyclopedia. We don't document every statement by Barack Obama, every pass attempt by Peyton Manning, every guest on the Tonight Show, the credits for every issue of Spider-Man, or the gaffer for every live action movie ever vfilmed. All of these things can be reliably sourced. There's nothing inherently noteworthy about an "award"; even honorifics from notable awardgivers aren't necessarily worth noting. If McDonalds gave the Big Mac its own "America's Favorite Burger" award, we wouldn't mention it, nor do we waste space on Walmart's Employee of the Month. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)}
• Comment: A topic not having a Wikipedia article does not mean that the topic is not WP:Notable; WP:Notable is even clear about that, addressing the fact that some WP:Notable topics are best covered in an existing article instead of having a standalone article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• No, Absolutely not, Strongest possible oppose. There is no such requirement at present in any policy or guideline. Nor should there be one. By our notability guideline, notability does not limit the contents of articles. The common selection criteria are optional; using notability as a selection criteria is extremely undesirable as our notability guidelines are a mess and are too arbitrary, subjective, incoherent, and questionable, are not suitable as a criteria for informational lists (as opposed to pure navigation lists), have too many absurd omissions, and contain too much manifest nonsense, half-baked and silly ideas and other rubbish etc; and describing entries as "notable" would violate our policy against original research. INDISCRIMINATE is completely irrelevant, it only applies to lists of statistics and change logs. There is nothing that can support such a requirement. James500 (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, Absolutely yes, Strongest possible support - I've already indicated my support above, but since obviously saying it your way gives it much more meaning and authority and blows away other editors' opinions because your opposition is the "strongest possible", well, clearly the other side needs its big-gun "strongest possible". In fact, mine is strongest possible times infinity! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support There is a clear consensus on this already, and I do not see strong enough arguments (yet) to sway my thoughts on this. If an organisation isn't notable, its awards are not notable, otherwise we end up with school and college film society "awards" that mean nothing to anyone except the five or six people who selected the award. INDISCRIMINATE is entirely relevant on this, as is NOTABLE. – SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  SchroCat, WP:NOTABLE is precisely relevant, relevant to how that view is not supported. See my bolded comment above at 08:15, 17 April 2015. There is "clear consensus" for what and where is it stated in the guidelines? The community consensus is what the guidelines state. Editors that advocate this unsupported no article-no sourcing view may want to propose a change to relevant guidelines, such as WP:NLISTITEM and WP:NOTESAL; refer to their respective talk pages or WP:PROPOSAL. Otherwise, claiming local consensus against guidelines that state otherwise just doesn't fly. See also WP:CONLIMITED, WP:PROJPAGE. Lapadite (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Our notability guidelines allow discrimination in lists based on notability, even to a content-level choice. We have a consensus and the guidelines allow that consensus. We don't try and list everything in awards tables and, in my opinion, that's the right call to make. You are allowed your opinion, of course, but at the moment the consensus is against that stance. Good luck in trying to change it, but I don't think it will. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Awards from school and college students' organisations will be excluded by WP:V because their publications are not reliable sources for the merits of a film, and their awards will not be mentioned in reliable sources. We don't need WP:N for that. James500 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I've seen student awards mentioned on sites we would consider reliable (university and school sites), s it's not their publications that would be an issue: we do need WP:N fo that. - SchroCat (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • An organization’s official publications would actually pass WP:V per WP:ABOUTSELF. That’s all we’d need to verify that they gave the award. It’s a question of relevance and notability, not verifiability. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I disagree, at least partly. An award is an expression of opinion about the merits of the film, and is included on that basis. If that opinion is not reliable, due to lack of expertise or otherwise, the award should not be mentioned, because it is an unreliable award. Any award granted by students is prima facie an unreliable award. The students' opinions about the film cannot be considered reliable. They are not reputable professional film critics and have no academic credentials etc that would make you think that they have any particular expertise in that field. We won't include an unreliable award merely because we can verify that it was given. It might be included if it was historically or otherwise significant on account of its fame or otherwise. I think the reason for the exclusion of insignificant unreliable awards would be something along the lines of NOTDIARY, rather than notability. James500 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
          • @James500: From that perspective, it’s no different from quoting a critic’s review. The review is a primary source for the opinion, just like the organization’s announcement of the award. And just like we don’t list every review, we shouldn’t exhaustively list every award. But, again, that’s not a matter of verifiability (and you seem to agree with this point). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Secondary sources coverage determines the relevance, per guidelines, not editors' pov. It's not about citing primary sources for relevance or "notability", but deferring to secondary sources, which is the fundamental basis for encyclopedic coverage on WP. Secondary sources do not cover every award given under the sun, only the ones they deem notable to cover either on their own or as a group (and if they did, what there should be in response is an explicit exclusion guideline). Per multiple guidelines, that is what inclusion in a list and in any article should be based on. Of course there's "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion", which is on a case by case basis, normally in reference to the content itself. There is also WP:PRESERVE, which states: Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research. To bring it back to relevant items of the topic, look at theatre awards. There are a number of prominent theatre awards, such as the Sydney Theatre Critics awards, that are reported on by multiple secondary sources. Tony Awards and Laurence Olivier Awards are not the only relevant theatre awards. It is not up to editors to dictate that a significant, relevant award in the real world - per secondary sources coverage - can not be included in a List of awards article received by an actor because, essentially, I just don't like it; that is the underlying basis for that view, because, as it's been pointed out multiple times, the notability policy and other guidelines don't actually support it, or forbid the contrary. Lapadite (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

NO, "I don't like it" is not the underlying basis for that view. The basis is: If an organization is non-notable, then how can it's awards be notable? As for secondary sources, one can always find some source or other with space to fill who will print the non-notable Mid-Central-Southwest-Virginia Critics Awards press-release of its awards. So what? That doesn't make those awards notable. Adding undue-weight clutter of meaningless awards from organizations not notable enough to have their own articles is WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--02:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article; The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.; If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context.; Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, membership criteria should be based on reliable sources.; Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. They couldn't be clearer if you ask me, therefore a case of "I just don't like it", especially considering the reiteration of "no article, not info for another article" despite WP policy explicitly stating otherwise. Posing an imaginary award or far-fetched situation doesn't help a point, which does not include baseless WP:INDISCRIMINATE citing. As I noted before, secondary sources coverage determines the relevance or noteworthiness, not "the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors" (e.g, "I don't like it"), per guidelines. Lapadite (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:LSC is a good general rule for lists and comparisons. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support This seems like a reasonable basic criterion for the inclusion of an award. DonIago (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Betty Logan, Tenebrae, Lady Lotus, et al. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: In past discussions about listing awards, I have brought up WP:CSC #1 specifically, and I will quote that at length here: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment." It should be noted that WP:NLISTITEM says, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)" (bold emphasis mine). WP:CSC #1 is one of several "common selection criteria", and it is up to us to determine a consensus to apply this particular criterion to this family of lists, that of film awards. I think this criterion is more appropriate than depending generally on secondary sources, which would be a spottier approach. For example, what if Variety listed a non-notable organization's award for a film? That could theoretically be used as a secondary source, but what if it does not report anything about that organization's awards the following year? Do we add that year's awards for these films or not, with no direct secondary sources? I see WP:CSC #1 as getting to the core of it, if this organization has notability, which means that all awards and nominations from it are thus worth reporting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, this is, as far as I can recall, pretty much how it's always been. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Comment. LSC requires that list selection criteria be unambiguous, objective and supported by reliable sources. Unfortunately, GNG spectacularly fails all three requirements. To begin with, we have never even come close to reaching a consensus on what constitutes "significant coverage", so the criteria is utterly ambiguous and completely subjective. The other parts of GNG are not much clearer because they also deal with relative concepts. And you will never find a reliable source that says "this award/organisation satisfies the Wikipedia notability criteria" so it fails that requirement as well. Wikipedia "notability" is useless as a selection criteria for lists that are not navigational in purpose. Lists of awards won by a particular film are informational. Even if there is a need to remove less important awards, "notabilty" is not an adequate test of importance, never mind reliability, of awards. If we have a selection criteria, it would generally be preferable to have something recognised in the real world and not invented by Wikipedians. James500 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• No, items don't need their own Wikipedia article to be included on lists, and on what serious basis can we attempt to ban the inclusion and mandate the removal of minor film awards? Is there a reliable reference source that lists "non-award awards" or awards/organizations "too insignificant to count for anything in the world of film"? Common selection criteria (WP:CSC) offers clear and useful guidance under the main Wikipedia Manual of Style, for items that "fail notability criteria": we can simply include a "minor awards" subsection or separate "List of minor awards" article, and discuss the merits of individual awards/organizations as they come up. This doesn't need special guidelines, as it appears to be well-covered in the core guidance. --Tsavage (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There are numerous situations where non-notable awards from non-notable organizations are very appropriate to articles about notable individuals. The constant I deal with almost daily is a notable individual (though it could also be a local organization or even a local event), being named to their locality of origin's backwoods county or city Hall of Fame, or presented as a local media's item of note. The association to the localized entity is clear, the criteria and justification for the local hero being included is clear but the need to then build a case for notability for the naming organization should be beyond the bounds of the requirement for inclusion. Trackinfo (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

A citation with contextual prose within an article seems, to me, separate from the RfC topic, which is solely about lists in an article. Most films don't have any particular local connection. (And I'm not sure if a star getting an award from her hometown's Chamber of Commerce or local film society is notable in any case.) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

But it seems to make little sense to allow the mentioning of an award in the contextual prose and ban it from a list of awards in the same article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess you've never heard the phrase "context is everything." In many parts of life, something that normally would not be included sometimes can be included depending on the context. Even government bureaucrats have been known to make exceptions to rules in the context of extenuating circumstances. That doesn't mean the rules are invalid or make no sense.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So meant to say what exactly in your posting above? As far as the "bureaucrats" in WP are concerned, in my experience they usually tend to argue without much regard for context or common sense.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The "contextual prose" for an award in a "List of awards" section or article for a particular film is that section/article, that film, the actual text being, the section/article title, and the lead, which would say, "A list of awards won by This Film." What clearer context is required? To make navigation and readability easier, subsections like "Major awards" and "Minor awards" can provide even more context. Editorial disagreement over inclusion of particular individual awards can be determined at the article level; minor awards/organizations can be cited to their own websites or other reliable source mentions (the common sense threshold for noteworthiness within an article is NOT WP:NOTABILITY). All of this falls squarely under WP:VERIFIABILITY. How can we editors determine the "worthiness" of content out of hand: "Hey, you may have given this film your insignificant award, but we at Wikipedia won't list it because you are too small to matter" doesn't sound like appropriate guidance. --Tsavage (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Coverage by outside sources. If multiple independent sources covered the fact that this film won that award, it’s fair to say that it’s a significant fact. If multiple independent sources have covered multiple winnings of that award, it’s fair to say that it’s a significant award. In either case, it should be uncontroversial to include it. Otherwise: “We at Wikipedia won’t list it because we can’t find enough reliable secondary sources about you.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems that deciding which awards to include or exclude is really a matter of personal editorial opinion. Verifying that an award has been awarded I believe can be done as simply as by referring to the awarding organization's web site. Beyond that, I personally would look at it first from the encyclopedia user's point of view. Regardless of who I am exactly - film student, fan, movie industry insider, journalist, whatever - if I'm interested in reception and awards, I probably want to see as comprehensive an awards list as possible. I may or may not be interested in tinier awards, like from a US state critics group, or a local festival in a little-known country, or whatever, but I probably don't want to NOT have that there, info I don't want should just be easy to navigate past. On the other hand, maybe I find it interesting or useful to know, for example, that a particular film seems to have a won lots of minor awards, even if it has never even been nominated for a major one (I can think of several reasons wanting to know about minor awards, from various points of view). Reasonable uses can be made for inclusion. So why would Wikipedia want to limit that information, by creating an arbitrary cutoff for some awards?

• Is it a space issue? We're not running out of digital space, and we can easily handle at least a few dozen per subject (we individually accommodate over 430,000 planets in List of minor planets)
• Is it a navigation and organization issue? "Minor awards" and daughter pages.
• Is it a verifiability issue? For noteworthiness in this context, we really only want to be reasonably sure that the award and awarding organization really exist: an orderly, current web site, or a descriptive mention in local media, that level of sourcing should suffice (noteworthiness, not WP:NOTABILITY: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article").
• Is it undue weight? That a film has won minor awards is certainly relevant to that film; weight can be balanced by "Minor awards" sectioning.

It may be all a matter of opinion, but I don't think making arbitrary decisions to exclude content is in the Wikipedia spirit, if there are sound and reasonable basic arguments for inclusion. --Tsavage (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Lists includes, by definition, non-notable items. Think about "List of songs recorded by...", discographies and so on. Will you delete a record from one of those lists just because it does not have its own article? To be specific about award lists - in my opinion, if the award is by an institution which has its own article, it is notable enough according to WP:N and may be included. For example, if Harvard University decides to award a scientist for their achievement, it is notable enough; if me and six of friends will award him, it is not notable enough. 213.57.106.251 (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't compare songs that someone has actually recorded that are directly relevant to their career to awards from a non notable organization that doesn't affect their career one way or the other. But the rest of your argument is what we are saying, if the organization has it's own article, then it goes in the list, if it doesn't then it's not added. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Lady Lotus: What if the award (or its organization) is notable enough to have its own article, but it doesn’t have an article for non-WP:N reasons? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

      Could you provide an example, either of a specific award/organization, or of a reason why it wouldn't have an article? If the issue is simply that nobody's written an article yet, the solution seems straightforward enough... In any case, I think the bright line has to be that the award/organization is bluelinked, rather than opening up speculation as to whether it theoretically should be. DonIago (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

      @Lady Lotus: thank you for your answer. Are you sure about it? from my understanding, "Do items, such as awards... need to have their own WP article in order to be included in List articles" means that an award that does not have its own article should be removed, no matter whether the organization honoring it has its own article. Please clarify; I'll support if that was not the meaning. I think its clear that an award given by an organization that did not pass AfD (or will clearly not pass it) should not be be mentioned. Thank you very much, 213.57.109.191 (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

      You appear to have a dynamic IP address that changes often and unpredictably. Please consider signing up and logging in with an account so it’s easier to know who we’re talking to and to get in contact with you. (Note: I have a static IP address, so it’s less of an issue with me.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

      Doniago, see WP:PRESERVE. There is no policy that says something needs to be blue-linked in order to be sourced in an article. The guidelines clearly allow inclusion of sourced information without articles, including items in a list. Editors are not required to create an article for a topic/subject they are sourcing in another article; items do not need to be linked, blue or red, in order to be verifiable and sourced. 213.57.109.191, it has been reiterated that, "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Lapadite (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Your point being? My understanding is that the whole point of this conversation is to discuss what we consider appropriate criteria for inclusion, and there's no reason why we should default to any minimum standard if the consensus is that the minimum is suboptimal. In this case, I'm leaning towards thinking it is suboptimal, though I'd note that I haven't formally expressed an opinion on the matter at this time. DonIago (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I totally hear you. The problem I have with this conversation, and numerous others like it, is in making the distinction between article-level decisions, and attempts to prescribe acceptable content at the WikiProject level. Editors should not have to come up against other editors, brandishing MOSFILM guidelines, saying, "You simply can't include those awards in that film article, because those are deemed insignificant awards." That seems to me not at all within the mandate of WikiProjects, and downright unfriendly and not conducive to open contribution to Wikipedia. I am concerned with walled garden behavior around subject areas. IF a single article, or 10 articles, or even 50 articles actually do have insanely long awards lists full of spurious awards from scam organizations, well, deal with those articles one by one, all the tools are there, that's what we do. If that's the result of an organized effort to subvert the encyclopedia, deal with those editor agents. Why are we trying to write blanket rules arbitrarily prohibiting otherwise acceptable content, outside of core policy and guidelines? --Tsavage (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking from the perspective of a gnome, I like having blanket guidelines when possible for the same reason I like having warning templates available instead of needing to write up a new message each time I think it's necessary to give an editor an advisory. To me, "awards/organizations must be bluelinked for inclusion" seems reasonable (I'm still not saying it is), because it's a very easy guideline for editors to follow; there's no ambiguity. To put this matter on the article-level, OTOH, creates inconsistency and likely confusion among editors, and opens a huge battleground for WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments (which already come up more frequently than I'd prefer). DonIago (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, I hear you. In a more perfect situation, guidelines would be just that, but they are not, they are quite regularly used as, essentially, hard and fast rules, to vigorously direct content against reasonable objection, and pound individual editors into submission (literally!). Adding more and more guidelines, which, along with increasingly aggressive interpretation, tweaking (in Project guides) and enforcement of existing guidelines, subverts the core policies and spirit of Wikipedia. Rule writing becomes a form of ownership and an end in itself. Often from what I've seen, guidelines (like this) are proposed for problems that don't even exist: has there been any demonstration at all of a widespread problem with runaway minor awards lists? And is this the best way of "hardwiring" what is a "worthy" award? For example, if a film has received major nominations and awards, the utility to the reader of minor awards is perhaps less, but for films that have not been recognized in the big award arena, ALL "minor awards" may be of much greater significance. Also, as I noted, using media coverage of minor awards to determine relevance is an imperfect measure, because the media is not looking for worth, just popular appeal: one tiny award may achieve tons of press simply because a big celebrity who has a nearby country compound regularly attends - is that reason to separate that award, on an encyclopedic film merit basis, from other similarly tiny awards - is noteworthiness and notability a media popularity contest? And so on. The more rules we write, the more ambiguities we create and disputes we encourage, it's a classic slippery slope. The core policies are quite excellent, and the gnomish view, if it suggests that steady, incremental rule-adding is good, should be reconsidered! :) --Tsavage (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• "To me, "awards/organizations must be bluelinked for inclusion" seems reasonable"; DonIago, the point being, in short, where is the policy that states that? Significant awards - deemed so by media coverage - are deleted per that POV, not supported by WP policy. You say you prefer direct, blanket guidelines. In actuality, (not what they could state, but what they do state) where is the guideline prohibiting inclusion of topics/subjects (e.g., awards, organizations, plays, schools, individuals, parents, musicians) without articles? My particular point is that the blanking of sourced awards without articles is a biased, arbitrary, presently baseless practice; it is also original research; Wikipedia:No_original_research#Verifiability: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." (bolded as it's a relevant policy). Good points have been made here, but as this particular RfC isn't a guideline proposal, my primary concern is clarification. I'm all for discussing potential guideline or MOS change, in a discussion for that. Lapadite (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of this discussion was precisely to establish a "policy" (or, if you prefer, precedent/guideline/consensus) about such things. I applaud your classification of the removal of material as OR though; I don't think I've ever heard that particular argument before, and find it rather entertaining. Verifiability is not the solely defining attribute for inclusion, nor should it be (among other criteria, we like things to be true as well), and we place additional constraints on inclusion all the time, such as those listed at WP:IINFO and WP:LSC. As I said, if editors feel that the current criteria for adding awards to articles are inappropriately broad, I'm perfectly willing to discuss imposing additional restrictions (whether or not they're reasonable is a separate matter). DonIago (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No, not the sole, one of three core content policies; WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:NOR. Lapadite (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

And as I noted, additional constraints are imposed on article and/or larger-levels all the time. And given that I haven't even expressed support or opposition to this, I'm not sure why you're so focused on my particular concerns. What are you hoping for here? DonIago (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Someone mentioned the "common sense threshold." That's a straw dog since what one person considers common sense, another considers nonsense. I would say common sense dictates that: If an awards organization is non-notable, then ipso facto, its awards are non-notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I wrote "the common sense threshold for noteworthiness within an article is NOT WP:NOTABILITY" using the phrase "common sense" in the exactly the way it is used, for example, in the WP:No original research policy: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Our own definition explains it well: "Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate." Common sense evaluation is of course is not being applied when individuals are determined to stick to a point, without considering and addressing reasonable counter-arguments.

WP:NOTABILITY is policy to avoid an insane proliferation of stubby articles about everything under the sun: encouraging "significant coverage" to ensure reasonable article length is a cornerstone. I see nothing in it about value judgement of the intrinsic worth of a particular topic or item. Any bona fide "award" given to a film has some measure of worth to that film. A "minor award" almost by definition is not going to have much outside coverage, but lack of media coverage by other media (media is the usual secondary source in this case) doesn't mean lack of worth. This seems to me to be exactly why a distinction is made in WP:N between article-level notability and content-level noteworthiness: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" (WP:NNC and this is consistent with standalone-lists, which "minor awards" may or may not be, in WP:LISTN).

As an editor and reader/user, I would like to filter out scam, made-up awards, and list only genuine awards where an organized group critically judges and ranks films. Deciding on whether an individual minor award organization is real is a matter of "common sense" examination: is there an official web site, with an about page, a physical address, multiple years of awards, and so forth-is it likely that this is real or a complete made-up scame? Common sense in this case would dictate that the standard for noteworthiness in a list of minor awards for an individual film is not too high, we are not deciding on whether to create an article, or even to praise a film, based on any one minor award, we simply want to verify whether a single award exists and was awarded to the film, actor or whatever is in question. This to me is common sense. --Tsavage (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - When ever the RfC's proposer states that removing awards given by non-notable groups with Wikipedia articles "has become a systematic practice," that means it's the status quo — i.e., an extant system in place practice. It's practically the definition. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

In relation to "the deletion of items without articles is across the board, by, in particular, Lady Lotus." It's not really across the board by the editor, it's arbitrary, I'd noticed. Are you really saying that when an editor persistently edits per their pov, against guidelines, it only reinforces that they're correct and their view is the WP status-quo? Actual WP policies/guidelines be damned. Lapadite (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually they're not editing "against guidelines". Quite the opposite. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What guidelines was I going against when removing non-notable awards? In my years on Wikipedia, and after several discussions with other editors about the same thing, it was my understanding that per WP:INDISCRIMINATE that awards that don't have their own page are removed. It just made sense to me and to others not have an endless list of awards that a user couldn't get further information on. You are the only editor that I can recall that's had a problem with this. And you can continue to blue link people whenever they say they support this RfC but it's their opinion, and most of the editors that have responded to this have knowledge of what it is they are talking about. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering there are 8 explicit no/oppose comments in this discussion alone (not counting past discussions), no I'm not the only one. And given that the guidelines explicitly support my point, in other words there has been wide consensus, numerous other editors, that are not in this discussion would agree. How is it against guidelines? You just complained about linking them, but it appears it's necessary again; here are three: WP:NLISTITEM (Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article), WP:LISTN (Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines ...The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.), Wikipedia:No_original_research#Verifiability (Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. The policy says that all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, needs a reliable source.) You may want to see WP:FAILN as well. What I argue for is clearly per what the WP guidelines explicitly state; consequently, what you (and those who agree with that view) argue against is in opposition to what the guidelines state. Would you mind quoting something from WP:INDISCRIMINATE that states awards (or items in list articles) need to have their own WP article in order to be sourced in the list? Because unless it's stating that, "per WP:INDISCRIMINATE" does not hold water, especially when multiple other guidelines explicitly oppose that view. Lapadite (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, nothing that you've said or linked to prohibits applying additional restrictions to lists included within articles if there is a consensus that doing so is appropriate. Indeed, WP:IINFO explicitly states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". That the guidelines support your broad interpretation for inclusion is irrelevant, as it's unlikely the editors who established those guidelines were considering this specific matter. It is far more likely that those guidelines are a starting point, and that editors are intended to collaborate to establish more appropriate inclusion criteria when appropriate. What you're arguing for is not adhering to the guidelines per se, but rather not imposing additional criteria, something which I don't believe is restricted. DonIago (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

nothing ... prohibits applying additional restrictions ... if there is a consensus that doing so is appropriate Your methodical deliberation has neatly summed up the problem! Nothing may explicitly prohibit X or Y "rules," but usually nothing explicitly supports them either, except this idea of "consensus," and that's where the WikiProject-level process gets wrong-headed, by trying to impose hard restrictions on content that is not restricted in the core policies and guidelines (WP:PAG).

We can't use WikiProject-level guidance to end-run core policy, and consensus is not a vote, yet these local, Project-based "consensus" efforts to impose specific interpretations of core guidance tend to get supported and written by very small groups. Here in FILM, I've noticed a pool of maybe 10-20 regular editors I'd say offhand, who argue loosely together, usually against one or two "non-regular" editors, which seems very local for category-level rule-making (if someone is into that, we could get some actual stats on the various "consensus" cited here in MOSFILM, and how and by whom they were established, presented in a neat table, perhaps).

In MOSFILM, I've followed debated topics back 3-4 years and in some cases more, and the same small handful of editors - many of whom are in this thread - show up again and again, arguing down lone editors (much as this thread has progressed). I'm not at all saying there is collusion - this group at times disagrees among themselves - it seems to be simple human nature: some editors spend a LOT of their time over a long period in one content area and develop, quite understandably, ownership behaviors, and, other things being equal, seem to support each other through familiarity unless they have a pretty strong contrary opinion.

Wikpedia seems to work because there is a lot of room for very specific editorial choices at the article-level: even just two editors can come to a big compromise that may stick for years. At a higher level, though, flexibility in guidance is critical, to ensure that all editors can participate, and checks and balances are always possible. This avoids creating single points of failure, where arbitrary content restriction can lead to quite effective forms of content censorship. This goes absolutely against our core policies by allowing some editors to tell other editors what to do.

CASE IN POINT: If I want to include a film award for a particular film, and that award is reasonably verifiable by citing, say, the award organization's web site that is orderly, displays years of awards, policies and such, has a street address and full contact info, etc - in short, gives every indication of being bona fide - inclusion of that content is 100% fully supported by core policies and guidelines. How can a handful of editors override that, to tell me I simply can't include that class of content that breaks no real-world laws or Wikipedia policies?

If you want to specifically restrict types of content permitted by the core rules, change those core policies and guideline that permit that content in the first place, don't try to subvert them. --Tsavage (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Which core policy/guideline explicitly permits the inclusion of non-bluelinked awards/organizations? WP:V is a bar that must be passed for information to be included, but just because information can be verified doesn't mean it's automatically appropriate for inclusion (for instance, if the information was verifiable but wrong, that would be an issue). You're advocating changing policies to resolve this issue, so I'd like to know which policy you're pointing to as specifically permitting the scenario we're currently discussing. DonIago (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Not entirely clear on what you're getting at here:

• Which core policy/guideline explicitly permits the inclusion of non-bluelinked awards/organizations? Don't see what this getting at, because we're talking about basis for blanket EXCLUSION. In any case, numerous bits of core guidance supporting inclusion have already been repeatedly cited in this thread, like: "WP:LISTN (Notability of lists is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines ...The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." and so on. And most of that applies to Notability, i.e. for standalone lists, the standard for inclusion of lists within articles is lower.
• WP:V is a bar that must be passed for information to be included, but just because information can be verified doesn't mean it's automatically appropriate for inclusion ... which policy you're pointing to as specifically permitting the scenario we're currently discussing. A little unclear, but the argument I think you're making is that core POLICIES - verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research - don't on their own cover all cases. That's a little semantic, as I referred to "policies and guidelines," the body of core guidance, distinct from WikiProject layers that are intended to be purely for complementary clarification, NOT additional restriction. I've indicated in the previous bullet point the core policies and guidelines I'm talking about: for example, change WP:LISTN, or back up to WP:NOTABILITY so that they indicate that editors can formulate arbitrary rules determining editorial relevance, like, which awards matter and which don't matter to any one film, or the readers interested in that film.

It's interesting that this discussion doesn't refermore to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, the procedural policy page for maintaining policies and guidelines. We should not be applying policies and guidelines aimed at article-level content, to forms of policy-making and the writing of new, additional rules." For instance, WP:PG#Conflicts_between_advice_pages notes: "If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice." Banning non-bluelinked awards is apparently at odds with WP:LISTN, for example, so, IF CHALLENGED, an anti-non-bluelinked guideline would seem to be directly in conflict with core guidance, in that the core clearly says that non-bluelinked awards can be acceptable list content. There isn't only one way to do most things, and at the article level, barring edit warring and its possible consequences, sometimes one "side" has to back down and let things be, even if it isn't what they want. --Tsavage (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

To take your case in point, being simply verifiable does not guarantee inclusion. In fact, WP:ONUS (which is part of a core Wikipedia policy) does indeed state that consensus can exclude verifiable content. It's a moot point if that decision takes place at article level (where discussions typically have fewer participants) or at project level because the outcome will be invariably the same. Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

With WP:ONUS, you are using guidance intended for content editing as support for formal rule-making, which are two entirely different things. For guidelines, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should be applied.

• It's a moot point if that decision takes place at article level ... or at project level - That seems absolutely wrong: at article level, decisions affect single instances, with all of the editor participation, specific details, and nuances of discussion that that encompasses. At project level, a decision like "no non-bluelinked awards" becomes an arbitrary content decision that totally bypasses Wikipedia's collaborative policies, guidelines and spirit. It is also not practical, because each rule that is written out gives rise to the need for more rules. As has already been pointed out here, what if an award can be bluelinked, but hasn't been. In that case, the rule mandates that, in order to include a particular award, you have to first create an article for that award, with is clearly and explicitly NOT the standard for article creation per WP:NOTABILITY, and in fact would seem to suggest going against the intent of WP:N, by encouraging editors to create articles simply for a procedural reason.

WikiProject rules seem best for largely non-controversial matters, like text formatting conventions, and what we do with "The" in film titles. When it comes to telling people, "As an across the board rule, we suggest you never include this source or this type of content, and even if it's only a guideline that you choose not to follow, and your alternative is also fully supported by core policies and guidelines, we the patrolling editors will revert your edits and argue with your relentlessly, citing this WikiProject guideline and a host of other policies and guidelines that apparently support it, until you go away," doesn't seem acceptable, in spirit and in WP:PAG. --Tsavage (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

By my read: There is no rule prohibiting non-notable awards from being included in any list. There is also no rule mandating that non-notable awards be included in any list. Editors of a given article or list may decide amongst themselves what content is and is not appropriate to include on that particular page. A couple guys at a wikiproject page may not. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The guideline for not including non-notable awards, as has been noted over and over, is WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

As well, guidelines state that objective criteria be used in deciding what to include in a list. An organization's notability, as gauged by whether it has a Wikipedia article, is a clear, objective parameter. Otherwise, deciding which non-notable award to include and which not is simply POV. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"The guideline for not including non-notable awards" is certainly not WP:INDISCRIMINATE (also shortcutted as WP:WHIM, WP:RAWDATA, WP:NOTCHANGELOG, WP:NOTLYRICS, and other similar), which is simply one bit of guidance that is, arguably, applicable to film awards. The section is titled: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," it's about data dumps and endless streams of indecipherable numbers and the like, and the only wording that may be of specific relevance to "awards given to films" is: "3. Excessive listings of numbers, data without context, or statistics." Even if you choose to characterize film awards as "data without context" (clearly, not the intent here, but anyhow), certainly you can't common sens argue that "Awards" or "List of awards" in a film article, listing awards given to that film, is not sufficient context to put them "in their proper context for a general reader."

"guidelines state that objective criteria be used in deciding what to include in a list." Using guidelines aimed at content editing as support for rule-writing is not particularly appropriate without also applying all of the guidelines specifically for guideline creation, per WP:PAG. Citing a rule that may be applicable to a single instance is not equivalent to making that citation an editorial guideline, it's two separate processes and procedures. --Tsavage (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What is this "rule-writing" stuff? All we have here is a standard RfC to determine a guideline procedure. It's done every day on Wikipedia. And I'm really not sure how text added to an article is not "article content." Also, please stop with the endless boldfacing: Shouting at fellow editors doesn't give your points any added validity and simply makes one seem intemperate. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A) If you're going to reply to me, why don't you address the most relevant and important part, which is, how exactly does WP:INDISCRIMINATE apply to film awards?

B) The "rule-writing" stuff is a straightfoward reference to the initial RfC set-up, where the originating editor said: "Three editors (Tenebrae, Lady Lotus, Lugnuts) in the above discussion say that the Wikiproject has a consensus that if an award/organization does not have its own WP article it cannot be added to a List article even if it is reliably sourced." Sure, the RfC description clearly states that this is not about changing guidelines per se, obviously, if editors are claiming local consensus on a Project-wide editing matter, and this discussion is to have any actual impact going forward, banning non-bluelinked awards would have to be included as a MOSFILM guideline advice: a rule would have to be written. Otherwise, what are we talking about here? I'm just getting to the point.

C) It's bad form to turn things personal, but fine. I tend to write longer replies than some, and my bolding is generally to make it easier to navigate them (and ot navigate the overall volume of this thread), particularly for editors who might be inclined to TL;DR behavior (a comment I have encountered). On the same point of excessive bolding, I might call you on the questionable use of bold in Yes, Absolutely yes, Strongest possible support (see above) that creates the impression of a new "vote," when you had already weighed in previously with a Support.

I'm still curious about your film awards interpretation WP:INDISCRIMINATE? --Tsavage (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae, "An organization's notability, as gauged by whether it has a Wikipedia article, is a clear, objective parameter" has to be a running gag by now; WP:N: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." WP:WHYN: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Reiterating something already contradicted multiple times isn't an argument. And, as Tsavage has also noted, the blanket WP:INDISCRIMNATE citing has not been clarified; where in it does it say that list items need to have their own articles? Lapadite (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support At this point I'm inclined to support only including bluelinked awards as an inclusion criterion. To my mind it's a bright-line method that can be used to establish appropriateness for inclusion. Perhaps this might even foster article creation to some degree where an award/organization really should be included but the underlying a/o is simply lacking an article presently. DonIago (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Perhaps this might even foster article creation to some degree" Don't you see how this is one of the main wrong-headed outcomes of improperly conceived WikiProject-level content guidance: it goes against core POLICY, WP:NOTABILITY, by encouraging stubby articles, where WP:N is specifically out to do the opposite, as in: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." This helps to confuse perfectly good core guidance: the difference between notability, for standalone articles, and noteworthiness, a different, less rigorous standard, for inclusion within an article. --Tsavage (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Again with the shouting. And all of this is remarkably irrelevant. List inclusion requires objective criteria. And as to your remark about "common sense," which apparently only you possess and not a single other editor here does, I would say common sense dictates that if an organization is not notable, its awards are not notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

List inclusion requires objective criteria - Beyond the fact that a film award exists (it's not made-up, a sham, a fake), and that it was awarded to a particular film, what are you so authoritatively shorthanding here, what other "objective criteria" are you talking about?

"common sense," which apparently only you possess and not a single other editor here does - Whatever your opinion about me and the other editors here, to quote another editor from above: "Considering there are 8 explicit no/oppose comments in this discussion alone (not counting past discussions), no I'm not the only one." What is the point of again with the shouting and sarcastic references to common sense, are you trying to illustrate how I'm sub-intelligent, hysterical, misguided, rude, biased, or otherwise not worthy of listened to? --Tsavage (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I clearly was responding to your long treatise about "common sense" in your post of 19:57, 20 April 2015.

And as has been noted here more than once, WP:CSC specifies limiters to lists, and gives as its first criterion, "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." If an organization isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, its awards certainly aren't notable.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Common_selection_criteria (WP:CSC) lists three examples (with no indication of a preferability ranking in the order they are listed; they are all quite different from each other). One of them, also previously noted in this thread, is: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article." The third item is "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group." which can include notable and non-notable items. Taken together, the three WP:CSC options offer a range of acceptable list options, as long as selection criteria are clear.

In terms of excluding verifiable film awards only because they do not have standalone articles, these core guidelines say it can go either way in any one situation, based on local editor consensus, working with WP:CSC (and any other relevant guidance introduced in the discussion). However, if we write a WikiProject rule favoring one method for all cases (and for no reason other than the preference of some editors), it would be saying, "no, you can't apply WP:CSC here, we've already decided on that." Effectively, would that not be a WikiProject rule superseding core policies and guidelines, in this case, WP:CSC?--Tsavage (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:CSC is a list of examples. We're not bound to adhere to them or prohibited from conflicting with them. DonIago (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Tell that to Tenebrae. I'm not arguing that non-bluelinked awards can or cannot be included, but that (A) core policies and guidelines suggest making that a selection criterion or not are equally acceptable options, and (B) that we can't supersede core guidance with rules that apply only to MOSFILM articles, as doing so, encouraging a particular interpretation that is the preference of some editors, would conflict with the core guidance, in this case, WP:CSC and its parent, WP:LSC (which has been cited multiple times in this thread, including in the RfC description, so what is your point?!). Core guidance allows either approach in any one instance, and WikiProject guidelines should not conflict with the core by attempting to categorically remove that option.

This RfC is part of something bigger: look/ask around, there is a potentially significant WikiProjects problem brewing, centered around whether specialized local rules for specific content types should be able to supersede Wikipedia-wide core policies and guidelines (which officially represent the widest community consensus)? At least one project (Medicine) seems to have gotten very close to that line already, both in rule writing and in enforcement, and MOSFILM is doing pretty well as well (for example, with accepting and rejecting various specific branded sources, and with initiatives like this "define insignificant awards" thing). Where this leads to is different content rules for different articles, and imagine the turf wars when two or more Projects want to slap their banners on the same article. Good times!!

Someday, there will probably have to be a referendum to either more clearly restrict the powers of WikiProjects, or let them run free, some perhaps breaking off into semi-independent content republics, with differing rules and a shared currency (or something like that :). I believe it's an important Wikipedia fundamental, not allowing special interests to take over, and the devil's in the details, like this kinda crazy...discussion. IMO, of course... Thank you for your time. --Tsavage (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This RfC is not "brewing" anything, and it's a deliberately alarmist tactic to say so. We are talking about the requirement to use objective criteria when deciding what to include in lists — that's concrete, established guideline. The first one WP:CSC suggests as an objective guideline is whether the organization is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, it's POV to say, "I like the Podunk Film Critics, so I'm including its Best Picture award" or "Terminator 12 is my favorite movie, so I'm including every single award and nomination, including the Podunk Film Critics, the Smallville Film Critics and the Central Ohio Film Critics."

That is exactly what objective criteria is in place to avoid. It's not encyclopedic to have fans of this or that spread non-notable awards throughout Wikipedia to honor their favorite movies or their hometown regions. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:CSC also suggests “short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group” (albeit a complete list of verifiable film awards would not be short). And that section does not include uncommon selection criteria, or demand that lists fit the listed criteria only, nor does it (being a style guideline) have any right to do so. A short, complete list of every film award that Terminator 12 has won (I’m assuming it would be a notably short list) would be perfectly valid per WP:LSC. It’s just a question of editorial judgement in the case of each article. The common selection criteria are not the only acceptable selection criteria. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Listing every award a film has won, including those of the Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film and other non-notable organizations removed by consensus, is incredibly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And please register if you're going to involve yourself in a debate, for obvious reasons. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Those obvious reasons are somewhat mitigated by the fact that my IP address is static. And whether it’s indiscriminate would be something to be decided on a case by case basis; if reliable secondary sources backed the claim that the Chlotrudis Society was one of five organizations that gave Terminator 12 an award, I’d argue on that Talk page that it (and all five, notable or not, bluelinked or unlinked) belonged in the list. And I maintain that this is not something to be addressed at the wikiproject level. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: There it is again, WP:INDISCRIMINATE - it appears you are using that link as the WORD "indiscriminate," because the guideline it points to has nothing to with what you're talking about. You've studiously ignored multiple requests for clarification, yet continue to cite it, and are now being asked again: what in the WP:INDISCRIMINATE guideline do you see as applying to this case of film awards? At what point, when you continue to engage others (and in my case at least, negatively characterize their comments; your latest: "alarmist") but not address their questions to you, does your participation become meaningless and disruptive?

Even your example is poorly researched: a 90-second Google browse for "Chlotrudis Society" turned up two headline-mentioned articles from the Boston Globe, including "Chlotrudis Society for indie film toasts 20 years", a clean, well-organized, up-to-date Chlotrudis Society web site, indicating healthy activity in, among others, film reviews, presenting films at festivals, sponsoring weekly film nights at two cinemas, and the member-voted annual awards with results conveniently archived for 20 years, 1995-2014. Why is that your example of an award that is so insignificant that it should not be included in an article about a film or person who received it? Because it is red-linked?

I'm not trying to be rude or insulting to: you are simply commenting over and over while saying nothing of substance, that that in itself becomes insulting to me. I am here to discuss, not to argue mindlessly and, if faced with points I can't or don't feel like replying to, either ignore them, or go silent, or use the go-to, "ok, let's agree to disagree." If you're discussing, let's discuss! --Tsavage (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: Ran into Chlotrudis again, via "And the cat on a stick goes to: Chlotrudis is as independent as films it honors" in the Boston Globe (a third article), and it in fact sounds like quite a quirky, interesting, hardcore independent film organization and award, located in Boston. One of its members is Philip Seymour Hoffman's mother, a retired family court judge who joined and regularly attends and presents, after finding her son's 1999 Best Supporting Actor nomination online; she apparently pressured him to attend, which he did in 2004. It has complex rules on award eligibility, voting only on independent films, no festival-only or direct to DVD, and released on no more than 1,000 US screens in the first four weeks, and requires voting members to view a minimum of 25 eligible films in the voting year. And more. This is what makes Wikipedia interesting to me, learning about stuff, but why not just spend time arguing about control over content instead? The core rule and spirit to me is from the top of WP:PAG: "There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing." --Tsavage (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not the one who's misinformed: If you'd done you research, you would have seen that the Chlotrudis film club was roundly removed from Wikipedia after a lengthy deletion consensus debate. All you're doing is showing your desire to stuff Wikipedia with useless trivia. And please read WP:INDISCRIMINATE more closely: something "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia," and the policy — not guideline, but policy — is not to include excessive listings of numbers, statistics and "data without context," such as awards from organizations that are non-notable, and without bluelinked articles that supply context.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that wikilinks provide sufficient context. If a list of unlinked awards would be deemed to lack sufficient context to pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, then I’d argue that the same wikilinked list is mere data without context. (Note: Please read WP:LISTGAP if you are unfamiliar with that.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Roundly removed? The Chlotrudis AfD, led by you, with a scant 5:1 Delete to Keep (including three I recognize from other discussions as from what I've observed like-minded film regulars), and the arguments are weak. You again cite WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:CSC, plus WP:UNDUE, in the same challenged way you do here, but it really seems like you just don't like Chlotrudis, as an "insignificant fan-club award." This is your example, then, of an unworthy award organization:

• In that AfD, the main argument is "no significant coverage," while the most detailed editor comment notes, with a "Weak delete": While this by The Boston Globe is significant coverage, I am not finding "substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area". Whaaa? If a US Top 10-rated newspaper (Boston Globe) publishes a story online, it's not "local," it will rank in the first couple of pages of search engine results, and whether reporters paid attention to it from another newspaper/web site 3,000 miles away is not too relevant in terms of reach and audience ("local area" coverage, per WP:CLUB for non-commercial orgs, seems to be about determining if something like a Boy Scout chapter or a homeless shelter, really serves just a very limited area, with no other relevance to people outside that scope; a film award delivers relevance through its recipients, its scope is international if it covers world film (as does Chlotrudis), so if the award/organization is recognized sufficiently in-depth - significant coverage for an article - by a solid reliable source, that should entirely satisfy notability). How far do we go to twist rules to get rid of things just because we don't like them? — Tsavage — continues after insertion below

  @Tsavage: If a large media outlet reports on something local to where it is based (e.g., if the New York Times reports on a small flash mob in Times Square), I would say that’s coverage inside the organization’s local area. It’s a Bostonian source reporting on a Bostonian organization. The article even uses the words “local organization.” I don’t know if I’d have agreed with deleting, but I agree with the quoted rationale. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@174.141.182.82 When reasonably applied, I agree with your interpretation of WP:CLUB as it stands (coincidentally, it's currently tagged as under dispute), and I probably shouldn't have included what you're referring to without more explanation (I was trying to not go off on an AfD tangent). Since you mention it, though, part of my full point with that, where they AfD-ed based on arguing against the type of significant coverage - yes, significant, but no, only "local," so, not significant enough per WP:CLUB - was that mention only in local media that significantly reaches only local people, about a local entity - which is what WP:CLUB seems to be getting at - is not the same as a mention (or multiple mentions) on the web site of a major newspaper in a major city (boston.com and bostonglobe.com are both in the 1800-2500 range global site rank per alexa.com), with a non-local online audience, and the page rank to push especially smaller items it covers to the top of search results, further increasing reach. The [WP:CLUB]] local test is somewhat pre-Internet, where local print news coverage really was likely limited to a local readership. If a tiny New York shop makes amazing local bagels for its neighborhood, and the only coverage of that is in-depth in the New York Times, a well-regarded paper with a significant non-local online audience, to argue that that on its own is still "too local" for notability seems like a stretch, when the same bakery in a smaller town, covered by its town paper and the next smaller town over's paper from 100 miles away ("regional" coverage), would "qualify" as more notable. Also, WP:CLUB is specific to non-commercial organizations, so an item that might meet notability otherwise, with a decent single source, could be ruled out because it is a non-profit, which doesn't make that much sense. I assume notability is to ensure that articles are about subjects readers from all over, not just from one or another tiny town of 2,000, may want to look up - common sense should apply per case. --Tsavage (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Have you checked out List of film awards lately? Being bluelinked clearly doesn't mean much as far as sourcing consistency - and there are at least two bluelinked awards that have no references at all, created in 2005 and 2007, one tagged as being unsourced since 2009 - it's a pretty arbitrary, uneven standard you're pushing. I don't find anything wrong with List of film awards - like everything else, it's ongoing, work in progress - but I do have a problem with holding up the bluelinked awards collection it contains as a standard for content inclusion...that's bad advice and fairly absurd.
• The section of WP:INDISCRIMINATE you're citing reads in full: '"3. Excessive listings of numbers, data without context, or statistics. Long and sprawling lists of numbers may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of Wikipedia articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put numbers within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, such as in presenting polling information from an election or numbers of lost lives in a war, consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. Where it is not necessary, omit excess numbers altogether and summarize any necessary data concisely. Obviously, "data without context" in that context is about crazy amounts of STUFF for no apparent good reason, like the names of every one of the tens of thousands of participants in each annual Boston Marathon. A list of different awards presented to a particular film or person is not "data without context." How many times can this be repeated?
• awards from organizations that are non-notable You keep repeating this, but awards and their organizations don't have to meet WP:Notability criteria to be included as content, that applies only to article creation, as has been pointed out several times already: "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" - WP:NOTEWORTHY

You manage to keep commenting without substantially replying to anything asked of you, or saying anything new!? --Tsavage (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've answered; you just don't like what you're hearing. What I see is someone who wants to stuff film articles with reams of indiscriminate lists and is bending over backwards with pretzel logic to make a case for that. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You have answered nothing, except with empty words, misapplication of policies and guidelines, and personal (let's just say) attacks, like "pretzel logic" and "I see someone who wants to stuff film articles with reams of indiscriminate lists." Can you give me an example of one list of film awards or a film article awards section that is stuffed with even one ream of indiscriminate list, just to see what we're talking about (and if you have one, do you have 5, 10, 20, to illustrate a problem in need of a solution)? What sort of standard do bluelinked articles that don't have any sources at all represent? How can we have Featured lists, our highest Wikipedia-wide public standard of editorial quality that include non-bluelinked film awards - is Tenebrae proposing that those awards be deleted, or Featured status withdrawn? Are you looking for the last word? --Tsavage (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Re “shouting”: You do realize only direct quotes were formatted? Seems more like highlighting than shouting to me. Might as well have used {{tq}}, but that formatting calls even more attention to itself than bold/italics. That whole issue doesn’t really belong on this page, anyway. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The relevant guideline is WP:NNC. If the subject of the award is notable for an article and the award is reliably sourced, there is no reason to exclude it, as long as it does not violate WP:UNDUE or other relevant guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

• Recently came across two Featured lists with unlinked, sourced awards: List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan and List of awards and nominations received by Madonna. Lapadite (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

At a glance, it looks to me like most if not all of the awards/organizations are bluelinked on both of those... one might also argue WP:OTHERSTUFF given that those aren't film articles, and I don't believe anyone here has suggested that whatever standard we would apply to film articles should be applied to other types of articles. I'd also note the Madonna article became featured in 2011; it's possible that the article as it exists now would not be considered to be of the same caliber. Just my thoughts though. DonIago (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is RfC is about List articles (not film articles), particularly List of awards and nominations received by an actor or film. Lapadite (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

So are we seeking to apply standards to film articles that should not be applied to other types of articles? By a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Because that seems un-Wikipedian. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here has suggested that whatever standard we would apply to film articles should be applied to other types of articles Exactly the problem: we're not supposed to be overriding core policies and guidelines with additional standards selectively based on topic. And this case particularly makes no sense because awards apply to just about every subject area: sports, food, film, music, academics, and on, so a "worthiness" rule that makes sense for film should apply to all other subject areas with awards, i.e. via core policies and guidelines, not WikiProject guidance. --Tsavage (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you're the only one beating the drum claiming this RfC is about anything other than WikiProject Film. Not even the editor who proposed this RfC is saying it is about anything other than WikiProject Film. Your Fox News-like attempts at creating hysteria centers on something no more real than the purported "war on Christmas." Please stop. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. To be honest (and if you are pushing this issue), I don't think other list of award pages should be treated different than film awards in this matter. If a music award is not notable, its awards aren't notable and it shouldn't be on a list of music awards. If a math award isn't notable (generic high-school award) then it shouldn't be on a list of awards by some genius mathematician. --Gonnym (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

While I wouldn't care to be the one pushing for such a larger revision of the guidelines, in principle I agree with this sentiment. DonIago (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. Can this discussion move forward? Lapadite (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As Tenebrae pointed out very early in this discussion, the guideline you keep linking has this line in it: "[...] editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles". So the notability guideline does in fact determine content in articles (in that that it lets the editors determine if a non-notable entry should be listed or not). --Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

As has been noted several times, (apart from the notability guideline stating more than once that it does not apply to content, and also stating: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list", and again, "Topics that do not meet this criterion are not retained as separate articles. Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages"), that paragraph states: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Below that is, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." The line "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists..." is linked to the MOS selection criteria (WP:LSC), which states: "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed (for example, lists of unusual things or terrorist incidents), membership criteria should be based on reliable sources." The see also in WP:NOTESAL, links to WP:Source list, which states: "When an item meets the requirements of the Verifiability policy, people reading or editing the list can check an item's reference to see that the information comes from a reliable source. For information to be verifiable, it also means that Wikipedia does not publish original research: its content is determined by information previously published in a good source, rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors, or even the editor's interpretation based on but beyond what the source actually says." There's no "per WP:__" that validates blanket removal of sourced items in a list, and there are several guidelines (as well as the Featured list criteria) that clearly allow them. Lapadite (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should probably move. It seems to have become a discussion about what should be policy about notability in lists, so perhaps it should move to WP:VPP? Betty? Tenebrae? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be amenable to that.

For the record, I don't think it's reasonable to say that any non-bluelinked anything is non-notable; that's silly. However, as an inclusion criterion I appreciate how clear-cut it is and easy for editors to work with as a bright line indicator. There's room for local consensus to override any larger consensus on this matter, and I maintain that this could foster article creation, and if the articles being created are appropriate, then this would seem to be a win-win. DonIago (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. The words "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" in INDISCRIMINATE do not authorise the removal of any content other than that specified by the four criteria of INDISCRIMINATE (plot summaries, lyrics databases, excessive listings of statistics and exhaustive changelogs) to which the said words refer. That passage is quoted out of context above. Frankly, that passage should be removed from INDISCRIMINATE as mere surplusage or tautology, that adds nothing of substance to the policy. It just confusing poor writing, something that there is far too much of in the project namespace. James500 (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Notified WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:POV (three policies cited in this RfC) for potentially wider input. Lapadite (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC). Also notified WikiProjects Lists, Theatre, and Actors and Filmmakers. Lapadite (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much the last throw of the dice for someone who is wrong and is going against consensus. Good luck! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Your trolling here is humorous, Lugnuts. I snickered. Lapadite (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You're the one trolling, mate. Quite pathetic. Like this little crusade. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Anyway, if personal attacks must be made, they should probably be made in usertalk or at WP:ANI, not in a discussion about interpreting policy. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

My last off topic reply, but Lugnuts should know to tone it down after recents blocks for personal attacks. Lapadite (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NOTESAL and WP:CSC #1. WP:NOTESAL says, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." The first part of the sentence needs to be considered because when it comes to film accolades, we are not splitting a list sub-article off from the original film article because the list suddenly became notable. We split it off strictly due to size.

This passage from WP:NOTESAL is more applicable to something like list of films featuring surveillance, which is based on reliable sources listing such films, complemented by reliable sources identifying a specific film as having surveillance. One of the individual items is World Without a Mask, which is a red link (and perhaps can be a blue one if someone can find German-language sources) but is appropriate to include since it was discussed in the Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies. That is how the guideline should be applied.

So here we're not even basing such lists of film accolades on notability guidelines but rather WP:SIZE. If we are doing that, we are dealing with large lists and have discretion about what to list. By splitting, we are recognizing that the list is too long to be in the main film article. So I find WP:CSC #1 applicable because we are dealing with a glut of organizations and want to provide readers a manageable list of film accolades based on the notability of these organizations. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

On a per case level, yours is an opinion to be considered. In general, though, you're saying that lists of film awards are categorically "too long" and pose a navigation/usability ("manageability") problem for readers, and so, without individual consideration, should be limited by certain criteria. But what is "too long"? As I mentioned earlier, we accommodate a multi-article List of minor planets with over 400,000 of them - "size" is clearly relative to the task at hand. So how many is "too many awards to list" for any one film or actor?

Additionally, all content must be verifiable (WP:V), and any verifiable award seems relevant to the recipient. How is it up to Wikipedia to decide which awards are not important or interesting or valuable or whatever to either the story of the recipient or to the reader, insofar as simply listing "their awards." So in your argument, it comes back to, "how many awards in a list is too many to be able to adequately format for reader usability, and why is this an insurmountable technical problem that requires content exclusion?" You can't just say, "oh, they're all just too big," and on that basis try limit all editors of all film awards lists. --Tsavage (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tsavage. Thanks for replying. I think finding a consensus to apply selection criteria depends on the subject matter. For a list of minor planets, it makes sense to list all of the discoveries made. It might be that if we have a general list of film awards organizations, we would list both notable and non-notable organizations. Notable organizations would likely have verifiable claims, if referenced articles about them had been written. Non-notable organizations could be listed based on a reliable source. For example, I would be fine with mentioning Chlotrudis in such a list. However, I would not have red links in the lists under list of actors.

This whole discussion, to me, is more about being able to repeat an organization's recognitions across multiple film articles regardless of whether or not there are reliable secondary sources directly reporting an organization's recognitions for that year. By this I mean that some organizations' recognitions are reported one year but not other years. My concern is treating this as a license to mine the organization's website and plug their awards and nominations everywhere based on such a singular source. They would artificially get more attention on Wikipedia than anywhere else aside from the Internet Movie Database. That's not much of a threshold to cross. I find that applying WP:CSC #1 creates a tangible basis to proliferate items of recognition. If an organization has significant coverage, it has encyclopedic value worth sharing compared to an organization that does not.

It is the same ballpark as the "list of actors" list articles; we list blue-linked actors and not red-linked ones to make such a list more discriminate and especially focused on items that likely have been neutrally covered. To think of it another way, if there existed an organization with recognitions that were technically verifiable on its website, but not reported by reliable secondary sources anywhere, would we proliferate that organization's recognitions? A single reliable secondary source shouldn't open these floodgates, in my opinion. There are other ways to talk about it, like a specific periodical reporting the organization's recognitions, or at least three separate sources reporting it, but to me, the cleanest criteria to apply is to establish the organization's notability directly to then warrant that proliferation. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Erik II, "This whole discussion, to me, is more about being able to repeat an organization's recognitions across multiple film articles regardless of whether or not there are reliable secondary sources directly reporting an organization's recognitions for that year" - to clarify, this discussion is about citing items in a list, in this case, awards in List of awards and nominations articles, to reliable sources, which themselves determine the awards/organizations that are notable to cover. A Wikiproject decreeing to favor a MOS common selection criteria (which conflicts with another, and with several WP guidelines) is not in accordance with wide WP consensus. I'd given an example, in the discussion above, of an prominent (per reliable sources coverage) theatre award: the Sydney Theatre Critics. The awards are reported by multiple reliable sources, yet they are removed from List of awards received by an actor articles because they do not have a WP article. That is not in accordance with WP policy and guidelines. As has been pointed out by several editors now, not even WP:INDISCRIMINATE validates such removal. What editors should agree on is one exclusion criteria for items in lists that doesn't contradict another or the guidelines, if there is to be an indisputable, objective basis for deleting such sourced awards. Otherwise, an editor, or Wikiproject, can't simply force editors to abide by a preferred MOS criteria that is at odds with other and guidelines, per which another editor can easily refute. That's just not going to work. Blanking awards without articles, for instance, "per CSC #1" can simply be rebutted with other selection criteria along with multiple guidelines allowing the sourcing and inclusion of such items. Blanking them "per WP:INDISCRIMINATE" doesn't fly either, because WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as has been noted, does not remotely support removal of awards without articles. There needs to be an official change in the guidelines directly and exclusively (for MOS) supporting a removal of items or awards without articles. That's what would reflect consensus, not local preference for a MOS line (or reiterated notions that are presently refuted by guidelines). Lapadite (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite77, I don't understand why applying one of the common selection criteria is against Wikipedia's guidelines? Are you saying it should not be applied to a set of lists but rather on a case-by-case basis? The criteria itself references WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers." What is your alternative proposal for listing recognitions for a non-notable organization? Are you saying that because a particular number of secondary reliable sources report some recognitions, that means all the recognitions from that organization should thus be included? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, been quite busy. Erik II, I believe what I said was that deleting unlinked awards per a common selection criteria can be easily rebutted with other selection criteria and several guidelines. I don't think this should be handled on a case by case basis. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not say unlinked list items, or awards in lists, cannot be sourced, regardless of how other editors wish to reinterpret it. I've said it comes down to, per WP policy and its principles, whether reliable secondary sources deem an award notable to cover, particularly when reporting awards won by an individual or film. I'd given the example of the Sydney Theatre Awards, which are covered by multiple reliable sources. Non-major awards can be simply separated and grouped in other sections in the list, so as to not give undue weight in structure. Lapadite (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Erik II: Thanks for the (I think, first) reasoned explanation of motivation: it may not be the only reason editors are supporting it, but preventing "unworthy" awards organizations from receiving undue promotion through inclusion of their awards in all recipient articles, I can see as something that gets the emotions going - self-promotion is anathema to the Wikipedia spirit. But as you have already indicated you are aware of, the problem then becomes one of deciding which awards are "worthy." We don't have an open standard to refer to, like: "only awards organizations that have appeared in peer-reviewed film journals." And it is questionable whether a WikiProject or WP in general can create its own metrics for evaluating awards organizations or anything else, we need reliable sources.

So why not use WP:NOTABILITY: if there isn't enough reliable information and proof of relevance to a broad audience to warrant an article, then let that be the test of a "worthy" award? Problem is, WP:N is not a measure of the intrinsic worth or value of the subject, it doesn't determine if a subject is worth mentioning, only if it gets its own page. Furthermore, the impact of an award potentially varies with every recipient: a single award from an incredibly tiny awards group could be pivotal in the story of a particular film or actor. Seems that, in the same spirit as listing all minor planets - to provide a comprehensive reference - we can attempt to list "all (WP:VERIFIABLE) awards" given to an entity. Why not? A complete list could certainly come in handy to one reader/researcher or another, and we can easily technically accommodate it, with ToCs and nested sections, explanatory editorial copy, variable font sizes, advanced tables, multiple pages if necessary, the many tools to ensure manageability of lists of any size. How long would they usually be, anyhow?

The LARGER (probably overriding) problem with all of that is we already have Wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines that cover this situation, and if we wish to change them, we should be doing that in the core guidance, not confusingly in a Project. If an awards organization clearly doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY standards, fine, no article. IN CONTENT, WP:N does not apply, and it is a matter for editors to decide on a per case basis, referring to any other policies and guidelines they wish. It was mentioned in this thread that core guidance doesn't cover EVERY situation, but in fact it pretty much does; here, at the highest level, WP:N seems to handle it all quite handily: non-WP:N items may be included in content, and editors can decide as the situation comes up. (And again, not for not asking, no-one has brought evidence of a significant problem in need of a Project-level solution.)

All that seems left is that we are somehow opening up an avenue for awards promoters to spam (or just, "include") an award in all recipient articles, to make the award seem more important. Well, that's possible, but what can we do about it, and why would we want to do anything? Wikipedia encourages unhasty, collaborative, incremental editing, and many things are in flux, in imperfect states. If ALL verifiable awards were included, their would be no problem; if on the way to that, some awards get there first, so be it. In the end, what is the significant damage to readers and the encyclopedia if some minor awards seem more prominent in some specific situations? If there is a case of a scam award being spammed, that is different: the scam can be proven, and all instances of the scam award removed. --Tsavage (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, why can WP:CSC #1 not be seen to list "worthy" items? This criteria existed and can be adapted. When we talk about verifiability, we are talking about backing information from reliable sources. More specifically, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Secondary sources are going to be news organizations that report an organization's awards. Primary sources are going to be these organizations' own websites. This kind of content is going to be far outweighed by referencing primary sources instead of secondary sources. We do this because it is easy to reference the organization's website directly (usually). This means for all we know, a minor organization may not actually have any secondary sources writing about it or its recognitions. So even if a red-linked organization's recognitions may be actually reported in a given year, I may be on a page where its recognitions were never reported anywhere. All I will see is the primary source. How can I tell if this organization authentically belongs? If an article about the organization exists, with verifiable information from secondary sources about it, I can see why its recognitions belong on Wikipedia. That's why I see WP:CSC #1 as applicable. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Erik II I'm not confident in my understanding of your argument. What I gather is that, although the existence of an awards organization may be verifiable (e.g. by primary source reference to its own site; WP:SELFSOURCE), that a particular award (say, Best Picture 2011) was given to a particular entity has to be itself verified by reliable secondary sources, or the entire awards organization has to be verified by secondary sources, that it is not enough that the awards organization meets a minimum verifiability standard to warrant inclusion of all of its awards everywhere?

I'm interested in your clarification. Meanwhile, in general, two key questions remain:

1) Can we impose selective interpretations of core guidance in Project-level guidelines, such that options provided by the core are no longer available for articles in a project (of course, in practice, guidelines are flexible at the article level, however, the realities of enforcement indicate that it is likely to be painful for an editor not to observe a project guideline)?

2) On a purely content level specific to lists of film awards by recipient, what is the significant problem with including "minor awards" through a minimum verifiability standard of reasonable application of WP:SELFSOURCE, both for the existence of the organization, and for the various individual awards it has given out? As an editor, my reasoning is that, in service of being comprehensive, it is on balance more useful to include "all" awards than come up with criteria to exclude some (and the various attendant policy problems, extra work, enforcement headaches). At minimum verifiability, readers can vet an awards site for a particular award the way I as an editor do: does it look credible, organized, up-to-date, displays street address, etc - given the minor nature of the award, that seems sufficient transparency. As I mentioned above, list size and context can easily be managed with standard tools: some awards can be put in a "Minor awards" subsection, even a separate page if necessary, with appropriately explanatory lead, and so forth. None of this is "indiscriminate," it's only comprehensive. And how many items are we talking about, thousands of awards for one recipient? Hundreds? Inclusion rather than exclusion seems to be the better approach in this case. And if a particular award is a scam, with a faked site including faked archives of years of awards, an editor can surface and eliminate that one award, housekeeping of this source, collaborative incremental improvement, is part of what Wikipedia can be great at. And if, dozens of fake award sites spring up and appear on WP, then perhaps other action than simple partrolling may be considered (has that happened already?). --Tsavage (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

To summarize my own position on this question: No, there is no such project-wide requirement. However, editors of a list article may choose to impose such a requirement at that article; WP:CSC documents this as a common method. Again, this is neither mandated nor prohibited—it’s merely an option. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And to summarize my own and many others' supportive position, no, this is not an article-by-article thing that has to be argued over at every single film article. Inclusion in a list requires objective criteria — otherwise, any editor can add any non-notable organization's award simply because he or she feels like because they like the movie and want to stuff in every trivial award or nomination it's gotten. (Including non-notable awards' nominations strikes me as especially trivial.)

The primary method used as objective criteria is whether the award organization is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. To me, if an organization is not notable, then neither are its awards. Or its nominations. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Who says that’s “the primary method”? Just because it’s the first one listed? Yes, inclusion requires objective criteria. But no, those objective criteria do not necessarily need to include that every item pass WP:N, let alone that each item have its own dedicated article. If I’m wrong about this, then WP:CSC contradicts consensus (by listing multiple options), and this page seems like the wrong place for that discussion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

no, this is not an article-by-article thing that has to be argued over at every single film article - we're not talking about whether to italicize film titles, we're talking about content. Which content is appropriate to be decided on at the article level, and which should be decided on for all articles tagged as part of the FILM project? According to you, criteria for inclusion of minor awards should be fixed project-wide. How about catering companies, can we name a catering company in the Production section of a movie article, or is that too trivial? Or only a bluelinked catering company? And so on? Why not just drop the wiki format for film articles, and create a submission form, so acceptable content can more easily be controlled? How can a small group of editors (how many would "consensus" here involve, 8-10-20 editors?) decide to strongly discourage ALL editors from including content in certain types of articles, based on their preference, content that would otherwise be 100% permitted by core policy? --Tsavage (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't see why adding a catering company to a film article would be anything but trivial unless reliable sources had somehow discussed the catering company in a non-trivial manner in relation to the film's production. Perhaps if the cast suffered a bad case of food poisoning. And frankly the rest of your comments strike me as a bit hyperbolic, especially given that you surely must know even the number of editors who determined core policy was a small percentage of the editing population at large, and core policies were never intended to address every situation that might ensue, any more than the original US Constitution was intended to address matters that led to it being amended. DonIago (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hyperbolic? You're now citing the US Constitution. "I don't see why adding a catering company to a film article would be anything but trivial unless reliable sources had somehow discussed the catering company in a non-trivial manner" - exactly, seems like "common sense," so we don't need to try to write an across the board MOSFILM rule for that, just in case (or do we?). In the same way, we don't need across the board rules to determine when any one list is too long, or when any verifiable film award is irrelevant in any one list. Handling things on the article level is fundamental to how Wikipedia operates and strives to maintain a neutral POV. Superseding core guidance at the project level doesn't make sense, puts broad content guidance in the hands of a relative few, and is against policy: Projects are for clarifying interpretation for specific subject areas, not for writing new rules. And what happens when two or more Projects "claim" the same article, whose local rules apply then? --Tsavage (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Your complaints about a minority of editors establishing rules for others, and especially your comments about creating a submission form, not only strike me as hyperbolic but bad faith, as I find myself doubting your sincerity.

As I've already expressed my overall opinions on this matter and I have no desire to waste my time arguing with someone who will argue in bad faith, I would request that you either clarify that you really believe that we should discuss the benefits of a submission form, or acknowledge that you were speaking facetiously. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Accusing others of bad faith participation, especially without good cause, is practically the definition of bad faith behavior. You seem intent on turning things personal. Are you requesting that I (and perhaps editors in general) should somehow tag comments to indicate facetiousness? Is it bad faith, or perhaps bad form, to illustrate logical extensions of ideas through rhetorical questions?

Considering this personal attack, I reviewed your participation in this thread. Is it good faith on your part for you to have claimed "Support" under this RfC TWICE (13:33, 17 April 2015 and 14:43, 24 April 2015) or are you of the opinion that we should all be able to indicate support multiple times if, for example, our reasons for support change, or do you really want to support this regardless of its basis in policy or common sense, or did you just forget? Please stay on topic. --Tsavage (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of acting in bad faith, I said your comments struck me as being in bad faith and asked for clarification. I note that you have not in fact indicated whether you were in fact being facetious. I would consider being facetious in the manner you were, provided you were in fact being facetious, to be bad faith. Whether editors should tag comments to indicate they are being faceitous? I could think of worse notions, assuming they have a genuine interest in discussing a matter. Certainly the hyperbole I believe that you resorted to suggested to me a lack of such interest.

My indicating support twice was unintentional. Thank you for pointing it out to me; I have struck one of them. Good faith might be to ask whether I meant to do it before questioning my motives, but it seems we've already crossed that bridge. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Concur with DonIago. This discussion has one vociferous editor who, as I've also pointed out, appears to make hyperbolic and alarmist claims.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

struck me just means, "in your opinion." Posting "Your complaints about a minority of editors establishing rules for others, and especially your comments about creating a submission form, not only strike me as hyperbolic but bad faith" is an accusation by you of bad faith. "Struck me" isn't some magical immunity phrase, and you are making quite a serious and insulting charge. Do you suspect I have a hidden agenda? Or that I am trying to deliberately disrupt this discussion? Please speak freely.

Regarding your double support, I did ask "or did you just forget" - I take my time and that of others fairly seriously, and haven't so far just "forgotten" I'd "voted" in an RfC, so I was rather curious. --Tsavage (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Tsavage and Doniago: Apologies for butting in, but by my read, Doniago merely wanted little more than to be reassured that some comments that seemed (to him) to be in bad faith were in fact made in good faith and were being misinterpreted. In my opinion, becoming defensive over a misunderstanding (whether deliberate or not) helps nothing. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Just so. But I feel it's somewhat of a moot point now. This doesn't seem to be pertinent to the RfC any longer, and I doubt this thread is going to change anyone's views (it's not going to change my views on the larger subject, in any case), so IMO any potential merit it might have here has dissipated. Apologies for distracting from the larger issues. DonIago (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the...intervention, 174.141.182.82, but I don't think it is too helpful to...enable this sort of argument. To be blunt, there is a loose group of editors who seem to have some sort of ownership feeling around MOSFILM, and they regularly appear to wear down lone editors who challenge anything: the "tactics" are the same: questionable application of policies and guideline, avoiding and going silent on substantial direct challenges, going personal whenever someone doesn't give up. All of that is clearly evident in this thread. I have been involved in a couple of these discussions recently, and have also observed exactly the same behavior, including many of the same names, in Talk discussions going back at least 3-4 years. Moving forward after this RfC, I think the place to discuss this stuff, for me at least, is at the core policy and guideline level, including consideration of the role of WikiProjects. But I also don't want to be involved in a lot of procedural stuff. I like editing articles, I just also don't like random editors with no more standing than I do trying to not discuss but force me to edit their way, when my edits are not against core policy. Grrr. :) --Tsavage (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I’ve experienced this and been frustrated by it, too. It didn’t seem Wikipedian to me, but it seemed to go unchallenged by the larger community (which compounded my frustration). I’m not sure what the proper venue would be to call the general conduct of a WikiProject into question, but doing so on the WikiProject’s Talk page seems counterproductive… I don’t know. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• As I've been trying to express, core policy is the beginning of editing, not the end. Among other things, there's the Manual of Style, explicitly a set of guidelines rather than policy. Arguments have come up and likely will continue to come up regarding whether or not an editor is required to abide by MOS given that it isn't policy and editors technically aren't required to follow it, and I think it's entirely likely that there are situations where MOS doesn't adequately cover the bases.

To say that you only wish to edit based on core policy is to disregard the fact that there are guidelines and other issues in play which may not be requirements but often do reflect consensus (which is in itself a policy). To bring up my earlier analogy, it's somewhat similar to saying you want to abide by the US Constitution but don't feel you should have to abide by amendments to it because they're not part of the Constitution's core policy.

And, not to repeat myself again, it seems disingenuous to me to argue that "a small number of editors are trying to force their views on everyone" (or similarly) when even the core policies themselves were formulated by a relative minority of editors. If you feel that more attention to attempted policies/guidelines/etc. is needed, you can notify appropriate projects, you can start an RfC, you can even propose a Wikipedia-wide bulletin be posted at the top of every page (my apologies, but I'm not sure of the procedure for such). I have to ask though, beyond people dropping the issue entirely, what would satisfy your concern that the consensus is in fact being reached by a reasonable number of editors? If you think the issue needs wider attention, nobody and nothing is stopping you from calling attention to it at Talk pages for areas that you think this RfC would impact. DonIago (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"Disingenuous," I love that word, I try to find ways to use it, even though I generally don't like the situations that give me that pleasure....

• "to edit based on core policy is to disregard the fact that there are guidelines" - I've taken pains throughout to say "core policies and guidelines" and "core guidance" and WP:PAG to indicate exactly not what you're saying. If you go to WP:PAG, I'm referring to as "core" that page and everything linked to in the sidebar infobox menu titled "Policies and guidelines," and on the page of the very last infobox link, Manual of Style contents, everything there except the section, Topic-specific that says, "These usually originated as project guidelines, and typically cover all of terminology, layout, conventions and formatting related to the topic at hand," which is where I think any Project-level problems begin.
• Rising to the reasonable question: "what would satisfy your concern that the consensus is in fact being reached by a reasonable number of editors" Not so much the number of editors involved, but the quality of the discussion/argument/debate, and how that played out, with ALL points raised comprehensively addressed - if that actually happened, and even if no explicit compromise was reached, then it might be possible for a good closer to arrive at a reasonable finding, and nothing wrong with a fairly-applied, "No consensus." Most "consensus" now seems more like an overwhelming majority vote, often because a few like-minded people show up (RfC, AfD, noticeboard), with no or few dissenters. Even there, a lone editor with a solid, unanswered counter-position should be enough for "no consensus" (a consideration that is somewhere in core policy/guidelines, I believe). In this RfC, we're not anywhere near consensus on anything, there are at least 3-4 independent editors who have opposing arguments, and those arguments even coincide in large part, and have gone essentially unanswered, whereas the "Yes/Support" views that have been discussed in some detail offer at least a couple of different rationales, from mainly a size consideration, to mainly a "notability/quality/undue weight" issue, and have been replied to in detail. There seems to be enough flexibility in the available guidance to argue either way one a per-case level (though perhaps not to argue for MOSFILM rule-making). So, there are two clear sides and no common ground so far. That doesn't seem like consensus to me.
• "even the core policies themselves were formulated by a relative minority of editors" - yes, but from what I've gather so far from history diving is that the core policies and guidelines were developed after the fact of Wikipedia picking up some steam, based on practical problems and solutions, and on what was proven to work. The type of thing I take issue with, going on now in some WikiProjects, is quite different, not dealing with clear and apparent general encyclopedia issues, but zeroing in subject-specific areas, and in solutions to problems that haven't been shown to actually exist to the degree that special rules need to be written. "There is no need to read any policy or guideline pages to start editing. The five pillars is a popular summary of the most pertinent principles." (WP:PAG) is fundamental. New editors and occasional contributors can't be jumped on by veteran editors with particular ideas and rules about how this or that SHOULD be done. Editing should be as intuitive and open to a brand new editor today as it was to a new editor a decade ago. Verifiability (attributable; attributed to reliable sources), no original research, and neutral point of view is really all anyone should need to know in order to edit - understanding just those words, or skimming the five pillars page, plus examples from the edit view, should be all most editors need to expand articles, without having to look up a single policy or guideline. Other editors may comment, refine, improve, as it should be, but not jump in and delete, citing rules. Down with ownership behavior and instruction creep! :) --Tsavage (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Bad question, wrong venue, flawed RfC - So if I'm understanding correctly, there was a dispute here about notability and lists, so an RfC was launched as, effectively, a Request for Clarification? More appropriate would be opening a thread asking for clarification at, say, WT:N or even WP:Village pump (policy). RfCs are for more specific issues represented by specific questions or statements. They can help to establish consensus on an issue, but this RfC just asks for "what the guidelines state with regards to this" (in opposition to effecting change to those guidelines). RfCs also need to be formulated in a neutral way. Instead the question of "what the guidelines state" is followed by "which to my mind are clear enough - they do not state that, in fact they allow the opposite". So in other words "The guidelines don't say this. So do the guidelines say this?" It's also a broad question about project-wide guidelines taking place at WikiProject Film, with seemingly no specificity for film-related articles other than the awards example, which makes me think it would be hard to get buy in for any outcome of this thread. Here's a suggestion for a better RfC question here: "For articles about films and people in the film industry, should lists of awards contain only awards for which Wikipedia has an article?" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, the RfC question is neutral and brief. The comment below was after the RfC was posted. This is evidently, for editors here, a multifarious issue, involving multiple guidelines and MOS (as cited by various editors on both sides of the issue). WP:N alone says "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." The RfC -which anyone can comment on- was started here, because it concerns the actions of a few editors of this Wikiproject; as you acknowledged, the RfC is a result of a related dispute here, to gain wider input, clarify and hopefully settle this issue, particularly for editors here. The relevant policies and guidelines' talk pages were notified. To the point - what is your response to the question asked (or the question you think should've been asked) with respect to the relevant guidelines linked? Lapadite (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's standard strategy to meta-complain about an RfC. Never seen an RfC where someone didn't complain about the RfC. And yes, this is a meta-complaint about meta-complainers. Don't get sucked into it, ignore meta-complaints and focus on the issue. There is nothing wrong with the RfC. -- GreenC 14:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And let us note once again that WP:N is far from the only relevant guideline, and that a requirement remains that there be objective criteria for list inclusion. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If this is not the correct place to have this discussion, can we please move it to the correct place? I think when moving both sides can be summarized, as currently we are just rehashing the same arguments. Also we need to emphasize, as seen from Bejnar's comment at the Survey section, that this is NOT a discussion about all kinds of list articles (list of rivers for, etc), but about lists of awards articles (whether this is ONLY film related, or site-wide wasn't decided yet)--Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the practical summary! As a reading-between-the-lines addition, this thread seems to ultimately be about how far and in what direction we can/should extend formal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC and preceding discussion are technically about a simple content-editing question, while a more far-reaching underlying issue has become evident on both sides, as in: "this is not an article-by-article thing that has to be argued over at every single film article" and "seems to have become a discussion about what should be policy about notability in lists." Until we all admit what exactly it is we are arguing about, this can't really go anywhere, as far as forming the right precise question or choosing the proper venue. Essentially, some editors want to semi-rigidly impose favored interpretations of site-wide policies and guidelines to broad categories of content within articles tagged by a particular WikiProject, while other editors, perhaps some to greater and lesser degrees, resist that and prefer site-wide guidance. It seems we are dancing around the elephant in the room. --Tsavage (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no elephant. As more than editors than I have been saying, you have been attempting an alarmist expansion of this RfC far beyond what the originator wrote. More than one editor has asked you to stop this blatant smokescreen tactic.

This RfC is about objective criteria being used to limit award list-items in film articles, where trivial and self-serving, non-notable awards run rampant. Period. Ask the RfC originator. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There is more than one editor on each side; more than one editor has also asked that guidelines stop being interpreted restrictively, for instance. Please do not use such a claim in an attempt to shut down an opposing side.

To my knowledge, there is no passage in any project page concerning film-related list articles as distinct from list articles in general. Please do correct me if I’m wrong on this point, but if not, this RFC (as originally posed) is about guidance on selection criteria for all list articles (since there’s no topic-specific guidance on same). It is not about what the guidance should be (but perhaps we need an RFC on that matter), nor is it about any consensus or groupthink independent of stated guidance; it’s about interpreting what our guidance presently states. So far, some say it states that CSC #1 is the sole preferred set of objective criteria, and that anything not matching those criteria at any time is to be removed. Others disagree that that’s even implied. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Precisely this. Lapadite (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: You don't seem to respond to direct discussion, so how about this as an example of how wrong-headed, against-wise-core-guidance, arbitrary exclusionist behavior can result in inferior Wikipedia quality. You, in the same spirit that you argue here for excluding non-bluelinked awards, de-bluelinked the Chlotrudis Award through an AfD you created, supported by a very few FILM regulars. So we have no article, although the staff of a top 10 major metropolitan newspaper saw fit to write three separate articles over the years, including an in-depth feature, on Chlotrudis (way more reliable sourcing than atleast tens of thousands of other WP articles currently in good standing). Now, search Google, the by-far number one most popular way to find out stuff on the Web: philip seymour hoffman awards. Ahh, what's that only 13 slots away from the Academy Award for Best Actor, could it be, yes, it's CHLOTRUDIS, appearing no less than 3 times in a prominently highlighted list of only 50 awards. How did that happen (IMDb lists over 75 wins)? And more importantly, why can't an interested reader discover what this Chlotrudis Award is in trusted Wikipedia. Oh, because Tenebrae had a problem... Why don't we stick to general WP:PAG, not display such ownership behavior, be more inclusionist, and stop going to extreme lengths to get all editors to do what a minority wants. --Tsavage (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There you go again, trying to bludgeon other editors with walls and walls of soapboxing text — this time containing irrelevancies about a properly settled deletion discussion about some local film club that anyone can pay to join, and whose awards mean nothing more than do IMDb polls.

This frenzy to include even such incredibly inconsequential "awards" is at the heart of your argument: You want to include anything and everything indiscriminately. The guidelines say we must use objective criteria to limit lists. There's nothing more objective and less POV than notability. And if an awards organization is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then its awards are, ipso facto, non-notable by Wikipedia standards. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Clear, objective criteria for list inclusion: "a verifiable film award" (in a straightforward "list of" context, citing per WP:SELFSOURCE a credible web site that includes archived listings of all awards given, would usually suffice as a minimum for verifiability). You want extraordinary blanket exclusion criteria, applied at Project guideline level. How can you participate in a discussion when you can't even reply directly to direct questions? How is what I just outlined not complete objective inclusion criteria, what is missing? --Tsavage (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t matter whether an award means anything. Wikipedia’s standard is verifiability. If reliable sources consider it noteworthy to the same extent as other items we include, it’s noteworthy enough to include, regardless of WP editorial opinion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose (My apologies for not reading through all the above first). It is a good rule of thumb, especially in lists that are hard to maintain otherwise. This does assume that the applicable notability guideline is a variation on WP:GNG: multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject matter, significant coverage. A simple compromise is to simply add such sources to any entry that doesn't already have an article where notability has been met. A common compromise is to add sources that may not be as strongly independent or have as significant coverage as would be required for notability. Lists that stray too far tend to become unencyclopedic, WP:IINFO and WP:SOAP problems mostly. Very strong inclusion criteria should be required for awards lists because by their nature they are promotional, they can be abused, and awards have special significance within Wikipedia for determining notability. --Ronz (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• support wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia. if the award hasnt established itself as something anyone has taken serious notice of, we do not need such clutter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @TheRedPenOfDoom: That is an opinion. “This is […] a request for comment on whether the present guidelines state that lists items are required to have their own articles to be included in a list” (emphasis added). Do our present guidelines agree with your !vote, that an extant article is required for inclusion in a list article? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Purely personal opinion is not helpful, particularly considering the amount of effort some editors have already invested in trying to fully discuss this issue:

• "if the award hasnt established itself as something anyone has taken serious notice of" - established by what criteria, and what is "serious notice of"? Knowing what awards, large and small, a particular film or film person has won seems, as a general proposition, useful, and with a list of such awards, our perfectly clear policies and guidelines for notability explicitly DO NOT REQUIRE that content items have standalone articles. If you want that, seek change in the relevant guidance, like WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RELIABLESOURCE, and WP:VERIFIABILITY.
• "trivia" - what is "trivial" about the awards, large and small, that a film or film person has won - trivial is just your opinion? Are they "all" trivial to the recipient? The fan? The film researcher? How would you or I know the answer to that - is there a reliable survey that says, "(these) certain film awards are trivial to all but an insignificant number of people"? If certain awards are somehow not "really" awards, at least begin by finding those criteria in external sources. Does a "real" awards organization have a certain funding level? Have specific accreditation? Have a minimum audience reach of X people for its annual awards show? Involve only film critics, or film professionals, or some other specialized group as voters? Have a minimum number of members? Have a golden or crystal trophy at least 30cm high? As it stands, the category is clear and unambiguous: "film awards." Attempts to create blanket exclusion rules for a subset of "film awards," WITHOUT clear external exclusion criteria, is wrong-headed and not in the Wikipedia of collaborative building.

According to WP:PAG as they stand now, it seems that disputes about individual items should be handled individually, at article level.--Tsavage (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This RfC seems to be coming down to one editor, Tsavage, soapboxing and bludgeoning the rest of us with walls of text. And ironically, he argues against himself in the above post, since "Have a minimum audience reach of X people for its annual awards show? ... [or] Have a golden or crystal trophy at least 30cm high?" are clearly absurd and argue, in fact, for sensible objective criteria. Nothing could more more objective and less POV that notability. And for goodness' sakes, we absolutely should not be arguing about this "individually, at article level" for every article where some proud Utahan wants to include the Utah Film Critics' nomination for best supporting actress. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I continue to reply to you, politely and with some substance, because the more you repeat your attacks, opinionated views, and misapplication of policy, the more at least some lurking editors realize where you're coming from who might have had a different view before.

"soapboxing and bludgeoning the rest of us with walls of text" - if that's how you characterize my considered replies... "Clearly absurd," "pretzel logic," "blatant smokescreen tactic," "alarmist expansion," and "ipso facto," this your style - we each have our own. Meanwhile, asking once again, can you provide a single link to an article where, as you describe it, "trivial and self-serving, non-notable awards run rampant"? Because a solution should have a problem. --Tsavage (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• Awards should meet notability standards first I'm really not sure where I'm supposed to comment at this point, but everybody and they mommas (deliberate colloquialism) has an award to dole out in exchange for reciprocal attention. We'd never allow "Jeff's mum gave the film twelve thumbs up", so why would we include awards that haven't met a notability standard yet? When Jeff's mum gets a staff job at the Globe, she can be quoted, and her awards might matter. But random awards from organizations that have not yet proven notable is the equivalent of giving your mum props simply because she had the foresight to dole awards instead of criticism. The award must be notable first for it to mean anything. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

@Tenebrae: If I’m not mistaken, you consider WP:CSC #1 to be the sole acceptable set of objective criteria for lists, or at least for lists of film-related awards. Could you show where this position is supported in current policy? (Note: By “policy,” I mean the full set of WP policies and guidelines, as well as widely accepted essays.) I.e., where does policy discourage using other sets of objective criteria for stand-alone lists? Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, so wait — you're User:Lapadite (as given at 22:15, 15 April 2015 and elsewhere) a.k.a User:Lapadite77, as well as that anon IP? What's with using the multiple identities in an RfC discussion?

I’m not either of those, and there is no User:Lapadite registered. As far as I know, no one in this entire discussion has ever socked; feel free to request a CheckUser to see if any account uses my address. I’ve interacted with Lapadite77 same as anyone else; most notably I think, he (or she, I don’t even know that much) pointed out that my discussion of #Proposals was out of scope for this RFC, so I closed it. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

My fault: You wrote "Closing per the RFC originator’s wishes" and I had skimmed that and thought that you were the RfC originator — who, confusingly, is not registered as User:Lapadite but who signed the RfC proposal "Lapadite (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2015". My apologies; I've struck out my comments.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's well-established that WP:CSC is the primary guideline for lists. It says to use common sense — and I don't know what could be more common-sensible than what it says: "Every entry meets the notability criteria ... Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria." Notability is the perfect objective criterion since it encompasses things like academy/institutional sanctioning, media coverage, established cultural importance, etc., and not just any one of those things. To say, "We're only going to include televised awards" or "We're not going to include critics' awards" or, as one editor I presume sarcastically suggested, "We're only going to include awards that are over so-many-centimeters high" ... those are all arbitrary. Notability, as determined by a consensus of editors, is comprehensive, discussed and clear-cut. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

CSC #3 is also sensible here: List every item that is verifiably a member of the group of awards given to the subject, regardless of editorial opinion about the worthiness/noteworthiness of the award or its presenters. This is an objective criterion. This is clear. This is a great deal less open to interpretation than determining an article subject’s notability. This has not resulted in bloated list articles containing far more clutter from non-notable awards than is reasonable (or at least, no such articles have been pointed out—please do correct me if I’m wrong on this point). Moreover, nowhere does it say that we must use WP’s notability criteria for lists, nor that we must not use other objective criteria instead. If we can ever manage to get to a point where multiple editors are willing to even consider using alternate objective criteria as a thing that is within the rules, this discussion will be able to move forward. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: This has already been covered several times, why are you repeating the same thing? In any case:

1. WP:CSC is a list of THREE "common selection criteria" for standalone lists, it presents three EXAMPLES ("common" not "only"). You are focusing on one of those three, while WP:CSC does not say, "pick one of these options and turn it into a guideline at WikiProject Film," all of them apply as options to consider on a per case basis.

2. The guideline itself, for which WP:CSC offers examples, is "Selection criteria" for standalone lists WP:LSC, which says, "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." As I have noted, "verifiable film awards given to X" satisfies that requirement. There are also three test questions, only one of which applies to film awards given to X recipient: "Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?" The answer to that is, "Yes, I would expect to see a film award awarded to X, in 'List of film awards received by X.'" Selection criteria: satisfied. No NEED for more complicated selection criteria. Differences of opinion should be discussed at article level.

3. Despite several requests, no example has been given of an existing problem with, as you put it, "award list-items in film articles, where trivial and self-serving, non-notable awards run rampant."

4. No solid reason has been presented for exclusion of an undetermined number of film awards (only opinions about how insignificant "they" are, or how we may be unfairly promoting some awards), meanwhile, a case has been made for simply including all verifiable film awards for any recipient: Wikipedia is generally inclusive, we can handle lists of all sizes, and a comprehensive listing of film awards may very well be useful to fans, researchers, and general readers, and at the least is well-defined content, certainly not indiscriminate.

An example of the problem you're looking to solve would be helpful. --Tsavage (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The third example specifically refers to short lists of "less than 32K," and the fact that this is the third option suggested means the other two are preferred. This all comes down to: You want to see WikiProject Film articles include every movie-related award that anybody anywhere ever gives. (As you put it: "including all verifiable film awards for any recipient" — dozens and dozens of awards, many of which are trivial by any objective standard.) Whereas many others of us want to follow the guidelines that say objective criteria must be used to determine what a list includes. And no, Wikipedia is not as indiscriminately inclusive as you suggest, since we have WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:CSC to prevent this sort of trivia catch-all.

As for your other point about this not being a problem: Given the number of editors in this RfC who reasonably wish to limit lists — and who have tackled enough overstuffed, cluttered lists of trivial awards that formal consensus decisions have been removing such non-notable awards mills — this latest attempt at smokescreening demonstrates no good faith toward any editor here who disagrees with you. Yes, we're all just making this up solely to vex you. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

“the fact that this is the third option suggested means the other two are preferred”—Where does it say that? It just means it’s one of three common choices.

“enough overstuffed, cluttered lists of trivial awards”—Name one. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Funny how this anon IP makes an identical demand as that of Tsavage.

And, really, do you think putting things in green or boldfacing and italicizing them makes your points more important or more insightful or more valuable than those of any other editor here? No. They make you look desperate and tantrum-throwing.

The guidelines, like any other set of instructions or any dictionary etc., places things in order. Something is stated third because two other options are preferred. If it were the preferred option, it would have been first.

And since you're showing no good faith in assuming all the others who disagree with you are just making things up — or perhaps this is a calculated tactic on your part to give us so much busywork we throw up our hands and leave — I will give you one (to use your word, boldfacing and italicizing). At List of accolades received by Avatar (2009 film), we've got an insane clutter of trivialities. The "Cinema of Brazil" award for best foreign film? There isn't even an award by that name — the link goes to an article about Brazilian films. And, really, if you can justify the "Cinema of Brazil" award, then why not 50 other countries' awards? The Las Vegas Film Critics? The Oklahoma Film Critics? Phoenix, Arizona? How did the Central-Ohio Film Critics not get in there? The World Soundtrack Academy of the Flanders International Film Festival Ghent???

These are insane minutiae. You like having lists of every single award anywhere by anybody — that's what you're advocating when you don't want objective-criteria limiters. That makes a mockery of WP:CSC and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

“Putting things in green” is an effect of using the {{tq}} template for its intended purpose. If you have a problem with it, take it up on Template talk:Talk quotation. And again, feel free to request a CheckUser on me; otherwise, please accept that multiple editors disagree with you for similar reasons.

I haven’t accused anyone of making anything up. I asked you to demonstrate the need. In fact, the emphasis on “Name one” was done to call your attention to that request, because you have missed similar requests in the past. Now please stop accusing everyone of bad faith simply for having an opposing view.

The award from the Brazilian Film Academy (Academia Brasileira de Cinema) certainly seems to be mislabeled and mislinked. I’ve taken the liberty of fixing it. Also, thank you for giving us a solid example to discuss. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of this RfC is not having to have this argument article by article by article. In any event, I'm going to try to refrain from commenting in what this clearly has become. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• SUPPORT a presumption that AWARD LISTS require notability unless consensus establishes other List Selection Criteria (technically NO to the RFC's general-case question). WP:NLISTITEM is quite clear that The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content, but then it adds (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). WP:LISTN says essentially the same thing. If a list does not have a clear List Selection Criteria then the relevant Common Selection Criteria are either (1) Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article or (3) Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. I have seen cases of companies arranging to give themselves fake awards. That makes lists of merely "verifiable awards" utterly useless to our readers. If a list does not have (edit)consensus for clearly defined inclusion criteria, then the general issues of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:PROMOTIONAL overwhelmingly weigh in favor of awards-lists being notable-only. Alsee (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposals

Closing per the RFC originator’s wishes. I was hoping to settle on one or two of these and make a proper proposal for change at WP:VPP or something; maybe I should try this there instead. But please answer the original RFC question if you have not yet. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lapadite, the originator of this RFC, invited editors to make their own proposals for changes. So I’m doing that here. Please indicate your support for one of the following regardless of what you think any project page currently says, so we can determine a consensus on what course of action to pursue: All stand-alone list articles should require every item to pass WP:NOTABILITY, meaning each item should be notable enough to have its own article. Film-related stand-alone list articles should require every item to pass WP:NOTABILITY, regardless of whether all such articles should. Articles about film should have different guidelines from the rest of the encyclopedia. It should not be universally required, but any stand-alone list article should be permitted to require every item to pass WP:NOTABILITY if editors agree that this is best for that particular article and for the encyclopedia as a whole. Each WikiProject should decide for itself whether the list articles under its care should require every item to pass WP:NOTABILITY. Other (please specify). —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC) @NinjaRobotPirate: I’m not proposing any actual changes here. I’m polling to determine what kind of changes might need to be proposed, according to the participants here. Sorry for the confusion. Survey 3. Sometimes, it is appropriate for a list to be more comprehensive than including only what is strictly notable by article creation standards. That goes for film-related lists as well as any other kind. It should be an editorial decision based on the needs of the article. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC) I'll support options 1 or 2 with the caveat that for an individual article the requirement may be waived if there is a consensus to do so. Put another way, I support the restriction being imposed on a broad level with specific exceptions allowed, as opposed to restrictions being imposed on specific articles but allowed on a more general level. DonIago (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1 (preferred) or 2. I believe the film award list issue is no different than any other award list issue. Notability should be the guiding factor for inclusion in lists. However, if we feel this should only deal with film award lists, I'm ok with that. --Gonnym (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 1, which goes along with the guidelines requiring objective criteria for list inclusion. Otherwise, a) anyone can add any trivial award / nomination they want, or b) we'll be rearguing this article by article by article. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) No (option ∅) - Start over with a premise that's neutral, clearly stated, and limited in scope to the purview of this WikiProject. Otherwise I really can't imagine this exercise coming to a meaningful conclusion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 3 seems to be the existing guidance at WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. #1 is too broad, if you limit it to lists of film awards fine, but many other types of lists have different criteria such as lists of rivers. #2 is again over-broad. Also "Articles about film should have different guidelines from the rest of the encyclopedia." is just plain wrong. If you want narrower guidelines that still comply with the general ones, okay, but not different. #4 is too restrictive, it should be by type of list at best, not by WikiProject. --Bejnar (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Comment - 174.141.182.82, I'd invited proposals for guideline change outside of the RfC. This isn't within the scope of the RfC, or, as Rhododendrites noted, within the purview of a Wikiproject (especially proposal #4, which is against policy); moreover, the presentation here is not neutral. Editors that haven't commented on the RfC are encouraged to voice their thoughts there, where this discussion is being held (note: discussion or consensus is not a vote count). Lapadite (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of example list

Is the article List of accolades received by Avatar (2009 film) (permalink) excessively long? Does it include accolades that it would be better off without? And most relevant to this discussion, is it representative of a widespread problem in such articles? Please discuss. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that this still isn't going anywhere. Lapadite, Tsavage and 174.141.182.82 are on the side advocating a complete WP:INDISCRIMINATE list while most of the other editors (me included) in this discussion are advocating WP:CSC 1 - limiting award list articles to only notable awards (for those just joining: what is a notable award? one with a Wikipedia article, or one that is notable to have a Wikipedia article). The more this discussion goes on, the more people are giving up and leaving this issue (which I hope isn't Lapadite, Tsavage and 174.141.182.82 plan). Do we want to bring this issue to somewhere else? do we want to vote? I believe we understand both sides already and currently its just a disagreement about how we understand the guidelines (as both sides are understanding them differently). For me specifically, the question isn't anymore what do the guidelines say (as, like I've noted, both sides say the guidelines say opposite things), but if we can get a Wikipedia:Consensus regarding award list articles so this issue can be closed (at least for a while). --Gonnym (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I’m not advocating anything of the sort. The initial RFC question was whether CSC #1 is required in all such articles under our present guidance. It’s not. It’s a viable option, certainly, but not a blanket requirement unless we alter policy.

And this question is whether the linked article is indicative of an existing problem that could arguably be addressed by requiring CSC #1. Can I ask your thoughts on that? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm with Gonnym. This contentiousness and continued new demands — including debating over an arbitrary single example — is not accomplishing anything. I would urge us all at this point to let an admin sort this out and close it.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The only example that has been offered in this entire discussion, unless I missed it. If the requirement is necessary, it should be trivial to point out any number of problem articles. This request has been persistently ignored throughout the discussion (again, unless I missed it), and now that we finally have something concrete to discuss, you want to stop? I’m not accusing you of making up the problem; I’m just asking where the problem is. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae, Seems the only option left. 174.141.182.82, See my comments below, but in short - what I (we) see a problem, for you is not. I don't see one side changing opinion here. --Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Gonnym That is also not what I've advocated. I've clearly stated, multiple times, what the intent of this RfC was and my thoughts on the matter. There is no need to state them again. By the way, from a quick scan, there are at least 12 editors that have voiced their disagreements, not three; don't misrepresent the discussion and don't put words in my mouth. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite, sorry for misrepresenting the discussion and putting words in your mouth. Tsavage, The proposal on the table (for me at least, and i think for the majority here) is to implement CSC#1 and have only notable awards in list articles. 174.141.182.82, the Avatar example given, for the "keeping all awards" side, is not a problem at all, for me (and again, i think for the majority here), it is. It lists awards from non-notable awards which adds nothing to the article. As an example - If a highschool from my city gives an award to Philip Seymour Hoffman ("the coolest actor ever"), and that award is reported by a local news channel, should that award be added to the list article? I believe it shouldn't as it isn't notable (I would however, be ok of it being reported in the article about Philip Seymour Hoffman if he made some comment regarding it). --Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly the sort of valid arguments I was referring to below. Thanks for that. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gonnym: You seem to be pushing for a resolution, without suggesting one. We don't vote. A consensus involves some sort of proposal, while here, there have only been "two sides." Furthermore, both sides say the guidelines say opposite things is inaccurate, from what I can make of the proceedings, there are two distinct points of contention:

1. According to current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, "Do items, such as awards in "List of awards and nominations" articles, need to have their own WP article in order to be included in List articles?" This is the "official" RfC question, one of WP:PAG interpretation.

2. Can WikiProjects like FILM create their own rules, that supersede core WP:PAG, for example, by picking one list selection criteria over another, although both are permitted (evidenced by comments like, "The whole point of this RfC is not having to have this argument article by article by article" among others).

Neither of these questions has been resolved, or squarely addressed. Both are clear propositions. Without passing judgement, in my opinion, at least, a "no consensus" seems clear, so if you want a result, perhaps for now that is it. Throwing up of hands in frustration is not a pro-consensus move. What is the proposal on the table? --Tsavage (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please don't try to game the system by declaring that the RfC is what you want it to be, and making expansive, alarmist claims. It is the height of hubris to say the RfC's questions have not been "squarely addressed." And as for it not being resolved, I am not the only editor here who sees three editors arguing ad infinitum against what seems to me, certainly, is a clear consensus not to stuff lists full of indiscriminate trivia and non-notable awards as if they were a foie gras goose.

The consensus is to follow guidelines that say objective criteria are needed for list inclusion. You don't want to follow WP:CSC or WP:INDISCRIMINATE, fine. But don't claim there's a consensus for anything except to follow those guidelines.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Assuming good faith means not making accusations of things like gaming the system… —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone who has accused other editors of making up a longstanding problem that has existed for years, demanding proof that it exists, should not be talking about assuming good faith. And making claims that the consensus is going in a different direction than one would like is attempting to game the system. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Once again: I’ve never made such accusations, but if this problem has existed for years, it should be trivial to refute those. I’m unaware of the problem, so show me. That’s all. And consensus does not mean a majority rule; it means consideration of all valid arguments. We have some largely unanswered policy-based arguments against the idea that CSC #1 is compulsory, and against the notion that it should be indiscriminately applied—that is, applied without consideration of whether the particular article benefits from it. I wish I could say we had consensus for saying we were free to ignore CSC #1 in favor of different LSC, but there are valid arguments against that here, too. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, #2 has been addressed and does not need to be asked, because per WP:CONLIMITED & WP:PROJPAGE, they cannot. Lapadite (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite Agreed that #2 shouldn't need to be asked, because it seems to be quite clearly addressed in WP:CONLIMITED and WP:PROJPAGE, and this was all clearly set out in your initial comment at the top of the RfC. Yet, the very first two editors to contribute their opinions, GreenC and Betty Logan, on either "side" of the issue, together demonstrated what is echoed through the discussion and what I see as the unavoidable true nature of the problem: no matter how clear, common sense and seemingly inescapable an interpretation of the core policy and guidelines may appear to be, there will also be editors who wish to improve Wikipedia by setting Project/topic-level rules that they see as simply practical, common sense efficiencies in their subject areas. (IMO, going down this path leads to ownership by the few, unnecessary and unhealthy restriction of content, and a hostile editing environment for new and infrequent editors, among other concerns.) --Tsavage (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: If List of accolades received by Avatar (2009 film) is an example of a problem article, cluttered with insignificant awards, I see absolutely no problem. The article summarizes the major accolade action in the lead, and then presents about 150 awards in a table that is sortable by column. I can click to sort by nominations and wins, alphabetically by award title, category, individual recipient (as this is a movie), or award date. If, after I have read the lead, I want more awards, what a well-organized presentation. If I'm wondering about a particular award, I can verify it myself with the citation in the References column. And that summary infobox: masterful! Clean, unambiguous, easy to navigate, verifiable. I will check out the edit history and see how it arrived at its current state. So far, what is the problem? Furthermore, only about 12% of the awards on that page are not blue-linked, so what is the plan if it a large number are unworthy, to mass AfD a bunch of awards articles? --Tsavage (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

s/unworthy/non-notable/ —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Another example list

Consider List of 7400 series integrated circuits. Should we limit this list to those 7400 series integrated circuits that have their own articles? Even the The 7400N quad NAND gate -- the very first in the series, introduced by Texas Instruments in October 1964 and widely used in minicomputers in the 1970s and early 1980s -- doesn't have an article. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I've tried a few times to emphasize the issue isn't with all list articles, but a subset of list articles that are award list articles as the previous example (List of accolades received by Avatar (2009 film)). Circuits, rivers, etc, are a whole different thing regarding this discussion (and also just to repeat something, regarding 7400N quad NAND gate not having an article, it doesn't mean its not they aren't notable for an article).Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

How is this issue particular to lists of awards? Are links somehow more necessary in these lists than in other types of lists, or is it somehow more acceptable for others to be “indiscriminate”? Or do award lists just tend to be longer? I don’t understand why we’re drawing a line. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Awards are by their nature promotional: a means to promote the awarder, the awardee, and the relevant industry. As such, awards are not comparable to circuits. Within Wikipedia, awards are an (at least partial) indication of notability. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not indiscriminate at all. In list of rivers or roads in a country, by default, all the rivers or roads in that country would be added. I am not sure what the notability guidelines for rivers or roads are, but I doubt too many of them have many secondary sources outside travel-books or maps. Award organizations and their awards however, aren't some integral part of the subject, and they don't inherent their notability (an award organization which isn't notable but gives an award to Philip Seymour Hoffman doesn't become notable).Gonnym (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the answers, both of you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand and acknowledge the distinctions being made between awards, integrated circuits, rivers, and roads, but I'm not sure how that relates to the central question of whether different rules should automatically apply to lists of film awards than to other lists. For any film, there is a finite number of awards, and within that collection, some awards will be verifiable by our standards and others will not. The same can be said for integrated circuits, rivers, and roads. As far as list inclusion criteria, I don't see the difference. Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, but that is a separate consideration. --Tsavage (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the rationale is that film awards are promotional in nature, I think it’s more a question of whether additional restrictions should apply by default to lists of promotional items, which industry awards are an example of. So I still think this is larger than WP:FILM, and we should instead be discussing it at WP:VPP or something rather than artificially limiting the scope. This discussion has nothing to do with the original topic anymore, anyway. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And I figured it was about time we did. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not clear exactly what guideline it was being proposed to "enforce". I note the awards of the Sundance Film Festival do not have articles. Is that because the awards are not notable? Or perhaps they are notable but we simply do not have articles. Or perhaps because the Sundance Film Festival itself has an article the lack of award articles does not matter. Thincat (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I now see we have an article on the Alfred P. Sloan Prize so that is notable. Or perhaps it isn't because a lot of the references do not look independent to me. So, is anyone proposing removing all entries from List of Sundance Film Festival award winners except this one? Or maybe remove all the entries and then delete an empty list article? Thincat (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Specific award categories of an award ceremony do not need to be notable by themselves, only the award ceremony itself. In this case, the organization hosting the festival and presenting the awards, Sundance Institute is notable and the festival itself Sundance Film Festival is also notable. Individual ceremonies and award categories are part of the main article (you could put them all in the same page but that would just clutter the article which is why they are split (2015 Sundance Film Festival)). Look at the Academy Awards related articles for a more complete article list.--Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That is helpful. Are you giving your opinion or is there documentation or precedent somewhere? Thincat (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not know if there is specific documentation on this. When I started editing here that was already an established practice seen on numerous film award articles. In Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Scope lines 4 and 5:

• "Film awards, including individual ceremonies, award categories, and winner or nominee lists."
• "Film festivals, including invididual (sic) instances and ancillary bodies." --Gonnym (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again. I never edit about films and I forget how I got here. What bothers me (quite a lot) is when people try and get agreement to observe a guideline strictly when there is no clear statement of what the guideline is. I think that applies here. Thincat (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit early to say, but it looks like there’s no clear consensus on explicitly establishing specialized constraints on award lists in general, either. If editors want to do so at MOS:FILM (perhaps to avoid future arguments over whether the guidelines impose such constraints), then that Talk page would probably be the best place for that discussion rather than a WikiProject Talk. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

With all respect, a different interpretation is that there is indeed a consensus not to include trivial, non-notable awards in FilmProject articles. Consensus does not mean unanimous agreement, and Wikipedia guidelines have been cited repeatedly to support not indiscriminately including every award anybody issues anywhere. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't see how consensus has been achieved here. According to the Consensus policy page (WP:CONS), "Consensus ... is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." Legitimate concerns were expressed by at least half a dozen editors, and these were not satisfactorily acknowledged or addressed. Two key arguments were:

1. WP:PAG allows for a variety of list selection criteria, with no special status for film awards, directly or indirectly;

2. we can't create new selection rules at a local WikiProject level, that apply to film awards only and supersede core guidance.

Consensus policy also says, "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)", while several arguments against creating special film awards exclusion rules have gone unanswered in this discussion. I therefore see no consensus so far. --Tsavage (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I have a different interpretation, which is not the word-of-God declaration you seem to be making. There is a factual claim you make that appears not to be accurate: Clearly, any questions that were raised have been answered. One side might not have liked the answers, or ignored the answers, but the questions were answered. By extension, this would speak to "the quality of arguments" about indiscriminately including every award anybody issues anywhere. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

But there’s nothing in guidelines saying we can’t discriminately include every award anybody issues anywhere that is verifiable by independent secondary sources. A straw man argument is generally not a valid answer to a concern. (To clarify: The straw man here is that the only alternative to a bluelinks-only rule is willy-nilly adding any made-up award anyone wants, and this alternative has been attacked while more viable and realistic alternatives have gone unaddressed.) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of RfC

In summary - As the RfC originator, the RfC question was: [per WP policies and guidelines] do items in list articles - such as awards in "List of awards and nominations received by (film or person)" articles - need to have their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles? The RfC was focused on awards in List of awards and nominations articles.

- Background info: unlinked, sourced awards (awards without their own WP articles) have been deprecated and removed from list articles by some editors of Wikiproject Film; they said there is an implicit consensus by the Wikiproject to do so. A discussion was had, and then this RfC was initiated.

- The following are the main points presented in this RfC:

• The notability policy (WP:NOTE), which is "used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article", states that its guidelines "only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." (emphasis is in the policy) It also states: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list."
• Some editors say the notability policy should apply to awards in List of awards and nominations articles; that is, regardless of their coverage from reliable sources, awards without WP articles are therefore not notable and should not be sourced in List of awards and nominations articles. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is cited, which states "Wikipedia articles should not be: 1. Summary-only descriptions of works ... 2. Lyrics databases ... 3. Excessive listings of statistics ... 4. Exhaustive logs of software updates". The following statement from WP:NNC is also cited: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." Other editors say that if an independent, reliable source verifies an award was given, then it’s a notable event.
• Editors that disagree cite the notability policy principles, as well as WP:No_original_research#Verifiability (which states: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors"), the MOS Selection Criteria (WP:LSC; which states: "Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed ... membership criteria should be based on reliable sources"), WP:POLCON, WP:PRESERVE (which states: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research"), and WP:CONLIMITED + WP:PROJPAGE; WP:CONLIMITED states: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale ... participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope", and WP:PROJPAGE states: "in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting ... and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project."
• Editors that say WP notability should apply to awards in list articles want to use MOS Common Selection Criteria (WP:CSC) #1 as the rule for excluding unlinked, sourced awards in list articles. Editors who disagree say that other selection criteria, such as the MOS Selection Criteria (WP:LSC) and Common Selection Criteria #2 and #3, are also applicable, and one doesn't overrule another. Moreover, that declaring that only CSC #1 is applicable to all List of awards and nominations articles is in conflict with the principles and spirit of WP's policies and guidelines.
• WP:Source list was also cited, which states: "When an item meets the requirements of the Verifiability policy, people reading or editing the list can check an item's reference to see that the information comes from a reliable source. For information to be verifiable, it also means that Wikipedia does not publish original research: its content is determined by information previously published in a good source, rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors, or even the editor's interpretation based on but beyond what the source actually says."
• Some editors who say notability should apply, cite WP:ONUS "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion'. Those who disagree say that that is on a case by case basis. Editors on both sides of the issue have said that this matter should not be left to arbitrary local article consensus, as it is an issue that has been brought up and disputed multiple times and will continue to be disputed without formal clarification and consensus.
• It was noted that there are Featured lists articles that include unlinked awards (awards without WP articles), such as this and this.
• It was noted that WP:WEIGHT is relevant, and List of awards and nominations articles should be structured in a way that doesn't give undue weight to relatively minor awards (e.g., critic awards) with regard to major awards (e.g., Academy Awards). That is, separating them in sections accordingly.
• It was noted, with regard to consensus (WP:CON), "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote". What consensus is not and Not a majority vote is also relevant. Lapadite (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

-- Note: Let me know if I missed a primary point that should be added to the summary. Also, please keep any further discussion or clarification in this section concise. Lapadite (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I applaud Lapadite for attempting to summarize the discussion. I can't say I agree with all of the summary, but it's a relatively boiled-down version of this book-length RfC

Without adding a point-by-point wall of text, I'll offer this for now: The summary mentions WP:WEIGHT and that "minor" awards should be separate from "major" awards. That's the crux of the whole problem: Who decides what's "minor"? It's POV unless we have the objective criteria that Wikipedia says lists require. And two: How minor is "minor"? Where do we draw the line? Or is that something else we're going to have to debate article-by-article?

We can't indiscriminately include every award that gets a mention in some publication that runs a non-notable group's press release. And it seems obvious that if a group is non-notable, its awards certainly are not notable.

Bottom line, in my opinion, is that we need objective criteria. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: If multiple independent secondary sources verify that the award was given, then it’s a notable event. I think that may be a point you missed here, Lapadite. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a matter of arranging them according to what type of award/organization they are, not "major and minor awards"; for instance, "Industry awards" (for Oscars, Golden Globes, BAFTA, AACTA, SAG, etc), "Critics awards" (for the critics associations, e.g., NYFC, LAFC, NSFC, BFCA), and either have the 4 main critics associations categorized as such or include a subsection for "Other critics' awards" (for other critic associations). Plus, if applicable, "Film festival awards" and "Theatre awards". With that structure, there's no undue weight issue in the way a standalone list is presented (e.g., placing the Broadcast Film Critics Association right below the Academy Awards) and the information it's easy to navigate for readers. Lapadite (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, this was exactly the discussion going on in the RfC, whether or not to include them in lists, not how to include them. This last comment of yours makes it seem as though this was the consensus of that discussion.--Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Gonnym. Looks a very sneaky bad-faith way from Lapadite77 to get his point across with a wall of text. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Also agree with Lugnuts and Gonnym. I might not have said "sneaky," but Lapadite77 clearly seems biased toward his own position. We need objective criteria. Otherwise, we'll be arguing over trivial, non-notable awards at every film article where some movie's or star's fan wants to put in every award possible. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? I was merely responding to Tenebrae's question about wp:weight. Bunch of bad-fatih accusations from the expected, of course. Lugnuts, If you think something else should be added to the summary or clarified then state what that is instead of posting more nonsense. Lapadite (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll comment on your summery points (going by your order):

• The notability policy: You've left out it also says at WP:NNC: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." - this exception is later expanded in other policies.
• It should be noted that the words you choose to phrase this are very much biased "that is, regardless of their coverage from reliable sources", if it has coverage from reliable sources why do they not have an article? Might it be that those sources aren't reliable? Might it be the coverage is actually just a few mentions? Also "awards without WP articles" - this is misleading. If its notable and does not have a WP, its still notable, and an article should be made. The problem is with articles which are not notable and will not have any article (as can be seen in AfD).
• You cite WP:CONLIMITED + WP:PROJPAGE as arguing that the consensus is with you on this issue. However, after notifying several other projects to this discussion, and having editors from those projects contribute to this discussion, the consensus seemed to be to delete non-notable awards. Also, quoting ""in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting ... and that editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project." would make it seem as if somehow this was the case here where WP:Film editors were asserting ownership here. I welcomed your notifications and hoped this would end this problem.
• It seems strange you quote every policy that fits your opinion however you just mention CSC#1 without quoting what it says: "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.". Notice its last line: "Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.". In addition, CSC#2 says this: "Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article." - how is a list of awards received by X a "parent" topic? It would seem CSC#2 is at best irrelevant here and at worst a Red herring.
• No comment on this point currently
• You've again not quoted a policy with an opposite opinion to yours. WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." This is much more stronger than "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" as the wording specially says that it does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article but to include disputed entries is on those wanted to include entries. Editorializing now: Which means, that if this discussion leads to a "no consensus" the inclusion of non-notable awards might seem as an act against this policy.
• I didn't look over the FA articles, but did notice one was awarded it in 2011.
• No comment on WP:WEIGHT. Regarding What consensus is not it says "Once it is certain that the community has analyzed the issue in depth and at length, the second criterion should be to check if a large percentage of persons involved in the discussion are in support of or in opposition to the idea. Mere voting should not count in this factor - all involved in the discussion should state their views on the subject in some degree of detail, or at least reference another's argument as their own reasoning for holding their views. Finally, the presiding administrator should consider whether the idea is supported by a sufficiently wide margin that the following conditions would be met: The decision would not be quickly reversible due to outcry over the margin by which it gained consensus." - with 34 editors contributing to the discussion, some more than once, it seems the issue answered all the possible questions someone might have and from viewing its "vote" count it would seem those in favor of limiting award lists articles to only notable awards are almost twice as many as those against (18 in favor, 10 oppose (with one writing "No" but his comment seemed more as a support) and 6 commented in the discussion without stating clearly their opinion). It would seem that this is not a small margin and that consensus is actually in favor of limiting awards.

While I thank you for summering this discussion, I feel as if the way your presented the summery points are in favor of your opinion and (it seems to me) it attempts to show as if the discussion was in favor of your opinion.--Gonnym (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Gonnym, I'll respond to it without creating another wall of text. The words I used to phrase it are not "biased", the purpose of the summary is to concisely outline the points presented by both sides and that includes "that is, regardless of their coverage from reliable sources", which was said multiple times, as well as the citing of WP:CONLIMITED, WP:PROJPAGE. "Awards without articles" is precisely clear. I mentioned CSC #1, and I also merely mentioned CSC #2 and CSC#3. I quoted WP:ONUS. WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE was discussed. Maybe you should read it again objectively, without trying to look for points you diagree with. This summary/section isn't about countering the points, it's about summarizing what was said. You seem to want to continue going back and forth between points already argued over ad nauseam in the RfC. Again, this is only an outline of the lengthy, eventually-redundant discussion. I will add that sentence form the notability policy you said that I missed, which I see was presented in the discussion. Thanks. Lapadite (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I stand by what I said, summarizing is objective. Just because you repeated yourself more does not mean it was said more. --Gonnym (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Not merely what I repeated; the content from all editors who participated in the RfC speaks for itself. Lapadite (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: Another point I think you missed: Many editors seemed to be answering the question of whether award lists should be limited by WP:N, while the actual question being asked was whether we already had rules restrictively enforcing this limit. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I read the entire intensive summary and all of the comments, and it seems to me what it ultimately adds up to, besides a total absence of consensus, are two points:

• No big problem with film awards has been demonstrated. No examples have been brought forward that illustrate a widespread problem that needs special rules to solve. No clear case has been made for why Wikipedia is harmed by including any verifiable award in any particular list, and why specific disputes can't be handled at article level.
• We can't arbitrarily pick things, like film awards, and write new content inclusion rules for them at WikiProject level. (This would require that Projects are able to customize core policies and guidelines for whatever special cases they choose, which I believe is not the case.)

It's amazing how much editor energy has gone into this discussion! --Tsavage (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It amazes me how you and Lapadite pick and choose from what to conclude this discussion. Twice as many editors were in an opposite opinion to you, that having non-notable awards listed -is- the problem (not how many or how they are presented). Its also been pointed out several times that the guidelines already deals with this and this isn't a project level issue (as seen in WP:Porn having the same issue). And finally even if the result is no-consensus, the guidelines clearly states that those seeking the inclusion of disputed content should get consensus for that, which you do not have. On that note, I'd appreciate if an admin were to close this discussion and not a party already involved. --Gonnym (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, once agains Lapadite is resulting to disruption to get his point across. No change there then. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

More desperate, bad faith, uncivil nonsense. Lugnuts, I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave your disruptive, uncivil behavior behind before you get blocked for a third time for personal attacks (the fourth from you on this RfC). Gonnym, a request for closure was already made. Lapadite (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I call it how I see it, as do others. Are they all wrong too? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I understand that the notability option some editors want is permitted under WP:PAG, as one option, but what I don't get is where one would put a rule that makes it the only guideline option for film awards, if not as a modification of the core guidance. This has not been answered. (The larger practical issue is having topic regulars force individual editors to do things a certain way, by arguing them down with reference to "local consensus." IF there is an ongoing big problem, common sense says look for solutions, but if it is a relatively small issue that is an annoyance or hardship to a smaller number of regular editors, that is no reason to modify rules for all editors, that's why article level consensus may seem inefficient at times, but helps keep things balanced and avoid ownership issues.)

You are arguing strongly for a certain course, but not responding directly to questions, even while you're asking for a close. Tenebrae said earlier that all questions had been answered, but I still don't understand the scope and perceived harm of the problem we are supposedly solving, despite that question being asked.

From what I get from WP:RFC, this discussion was not extended so was delisted at 30 days, and is now a regular local discussion, since there is no wider call for editor comments.--Tsavage (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

To expand a bit on Tsavage’s point about unanswered questions: The way a number of editors have talked about the problem here makes it sound like sketchy, no-name awards are endemic throughout Wikipedia. Yet after repeated requests for examples of articles exhibiting the problems that needed to be solved, precisely one was offered: a list in the form of a rather lengthy but well-constructed table, with no history of conflict over or discussion of these issues. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Every article containing one of these awards (just a small list) is a problem: Southeastern Film Critics Association, Central Ohio Film Critics Association Indiana Film Journalists Association Oklahoma Film Critics Circle, Las Vegas Film Critics Society, Nevada Film Critics Society, Phoenix Film Critics Society. The example that started this current discussion was Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Cate Blanchett, which obviously did have conflict over this issue. It would be very naive to think that this conflict never happened on other talk pages. I searched for the phrase "non notable awards" in talk pages and it came up with these examples, in Film: Talk:List of_accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film)#Non-notable awards, Talk:List of accolades received by Beasts of the Southern Wild, Talk:Blue Is the_Warmest Colour#Non-notable awards, Talk:List of accolades received by Blue Is the Warmest Colour, Talk:Amour (2012_film)#Non-notable award articles and Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2/Archive 2#Non-notable awards. In other fields: Talk:Whatever, Linda Talk:Alexis Texas#Non-notable awards, Talk:Bobbi Starr#Non-notable_awards, Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Paramore and Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Winner. Also, the fact that WP:Porn is having this same discussion is more evidence that this is an issue. --Gonnym (talk) 05:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

All but three (two of which stated: "without sources clearly demonstrating they deserve mention, non-notable awards should not be listed" and "It's meant to be a list of notable awards put out by reliable sources.") of those complaints come from Wikiproject Film editors (notably, Lugnuts and Tenebrae), citing the Wikiproject and WP:INDISCRIMINATE as reason, which is what led to this and other discussions had in the past; some Wikiproject Film editors want to excise sourced awards that don't have WP articles and others say it should not be determined by the Wikiproject, but by independent reliable sources per policies and guidelines, one of which is the notability policy, which says that information from a topic that doesn't meet the WP:NOTE requirements to have its own article may be merged into another article. Porn awards are irrelevant to this discussion of film and theater awards. Lapadite (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A list of 10 articles selected to indicate a widespread film awards problem should make such a problem evident. I did a quick check of each link (apologies if I missed something critical) and find no consistent thread through them all, no indication of a particular problem, other than in some cases, a couple of editors taking issue with certain awards. Also, the number of contested awards and the way they are formatted and presented in each instance didn't seem to be a problem.

Only five are actually films. Three of the film examples involve editor Lugnuts removing a handful of awards, sometimes with no notes, sometimes not usefully responding to a challenge on the basis for removal; Tenebrae is directly or indirectly involved in the other two film examples - I mention names because these editors are among the group of strong supporters of film award exclusion; we would look for more independent examples of the problem.

The other five examples are variously porn actresses, musicians, and an apparently obscure indie web series. If the non-films are meant to indicate site-wide awards problems - which seems to be the level at which we need to push for any restrictive change in awards guidelines - then the scope should be wider: sports awards, academic awards, various industry awards, and so forth, on and on and on - I don't see how a general awards discussion can arbitrarily use certain entertainment awards as the representative type. Either make a case for ALL, or stick to strictly film, in which case, half of the list is irrelevant to this discussion.

Overall, the list at first glance looks significant by number of items, but upon examination, does not in any way illustrate a widespread film awards problem. Here's a quick rundown of each example:

• 12 Years... One editor's Talk page comment, no discussion, excerpt: "I take issue with a few of the awards included in this article, in that they appear to have no notability at all." and "they should be removed as discussed here, or a conversation should be opened at WT:FILM." The linked discussion was started by Tenebrae, has clear opposing arguments (e.g. "if we make list of awards then we should make it comprehensive"), and comes to no conclusion (Tenebrae last comment: "It's been a while and I can see that ... attention has waned."
• Harry Potter ... Deathly... - Talk opened by Tenebrae: "As several discussions on various WP:FILM article talk-pages have ascertained, WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to awards tables. Under this guideline, we don't list every single regional or film-group award." A dissenting editor B.Davis2003: "If the film was nominated and or won, then it should be noted in this table, and i don't mean to be rude by this, but what makes you decided on what award is notable or not" discussion ensues, goes off topic, no conclusion.
• Beasts of the..., Blue is the..., Amour: Lugnuts removes awards to Talk, no signature on one, Talk notes on some: "Moved non-notable awards per WT:FILM." Editor challenges removal: "No consensus yet on subject matter at WT:FILM. ... Given that, I don't see why this page should be an exception and I suggest an evaluation to be done by an administrator or other independent editors." Lugnuts reply: "By that logic, there's no consensus to include them either! See the archives of the talkpage too."
• Winner, Paramore are musicians, so music awards; The cited problem in one of them was Spin Magazine Best Albums of 2009, one wouldn't generally consider an article list an "award" (though it is some sort of accolade) else any "best" and "top" list in a publication becomes an award. It might be a problem if people started including "Top Five Date Night-at-Home RomComs" article picks as awards, but this thankfully does not appear to be the case, or the type of "indiscriminate" being discussed here.
• Whatever, Linda A stub article for an apparently tiny Canadian web series; whatever awards issues there may be here, this is a different sort of case, tied in with notability of the subject itself (it survived AfD no consensus); hardly a representative example for larger films.
• Bobbi Starr, Alexis Texas - porn actresses, possibly related, but considering the separate structure of the porn industry, the issues are like as not differerent, as different as awards from any other industry than "film."

In any case, that's my finding/opinion, and sincere thanks to Gonnym for the effort to keep this based in common sense and facts! --Tsavage (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for actually looking over them. Just a quick note - I hardly did an in-depth look at the results and I've only searched the phrase "non notable awards", this does not mean this issue isn't presented in other places better. Also, just to recap fast a point, for me at least, even if its just 1 non-notable award in 1 article, I still see it as a problem (For me, its similar (note: not the same) to the situation where you'd have just 1 unreferenced fact in an article - its just 1, so is it a problem?) --Gonnym (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Yes, I totally agree, a single instance is still an instance. But as I see it, we have to (and so far more often than not, do, in the end) apply the elusive but real idea of common sense to Wikipedia, because we are all anonymous editors relying on coming to an agreement (even if that measn one side walking away). And common sense says, there are going to be LOTS of single instances, and even multiple instances, that any one editor may abhor and find totally against policies, but just have to let go, for the time being, at least. You pick your "battles," like we both seem to have here, and let other things slide. Here, I'm opposed to lone editors being coerced by local groups using "local consensus" as the means, and film awards is a representative issue.

Again, of course IMHO, article-level discussion may in some cases seem inefficient, but it is a constant check against...tyranny by the few. If you take one "bad" award out of one article, uncontested, and then go to another article where that same bad award appears and meet with resistance that you can't easily overcome, well, as painful and unfair as it seems, the best course may be to let it go. You can spend all your time arguing on Talk, seeking sanctions against editors, going to noticeboards, whatever, but if there is a concerted effort in one article, and you're alone, you're likely beat, for now, unless you're extremely committed to that issue and devote huge amounts of time to it. If it's copyvio or BLPvio, something potentially significantly damaging to Wikipedia, it will be caught, otherwise it's all just part of our ever-varying level of per-article quality. Meanwhile, to try to fix that with a higher level rule only magnifies the problem. Imagine instead of being by the thwarted editor, the wider rule was made by your opponents, who then began patrolling everything based on that rule. It's not a winning scenario, as we can see right here. :) --Tsavage (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, the Cate Blanchett article. The one where Lapadite77 was told by multiple editors that he was wrong, hence this massive pointy crusade. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Consensus does not mean groupthink. Multiple editors saying “you’re wrong” doesn’t necessarily mean you are in fact wrong. They may actually be wrong, or (as seems to have been the case in that discussion) there may merely be a reasonable disagreement with no consensus—in which case the proper course of action is to build a consensus. I hope that helps, and also that you turn your efforts from making snide remarks to helping to build that consensus. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

All you've done is engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, make utterly baseless, bad-faith, derogatory comments and deliberately misrepresent the entire matter. Lady Lotus, as noted in the original discussion here, was the one (I came across) removing sourced awards throughout a bunch of List of awards and nominations articles; the discussion had in that article's talk page was with her and an editor who "just copied what has been done by other users on these type of articles such as Lady Lotus". That discussion was taken here, as noted in the RfC. You really need to take a breather. Your distasteful behavior here speaks volumes about yourself. Lapadite (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who needs to "take a breather" as you're the only one getting all worked up about other users disagreeing with your WP:POINTY edits. Sad really. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior came from those editors WP:WIKILAWYERING with walls of text and who made move-the-goalpost demands. And I would add that making point-by-point lists of some of the articles in which this sort of discussion has taken place only adds to the weight of evidence that this is definitely a contentious issue that should not be fought out article-by-article. Lists need objective criteria or else contentious discussions over WP:INDISCRIMINATE will continue to recur, as they have been doing for several months, if not at least a year or two. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Continued award-list discussion

At risk of mischaracterizing this whole debate in a different way…

“There’s a large-scale problem that needs to be dealt with globally.”

“Okay, where’s the problem?”

“All around, everywhere you look!”

“Like where?”

“Just… everywhere!”

“Where?”

“Like this one article, it’s violating the rules.”

“You do realize that’s just a suggestion, not actually a rule? It’s only one example of complying with—”

“But it’s in the rules! Stop wikilawyering!”

I’m not trying to represent any one person with either side here, and of course no one in this discussion was anywhere near as petulant as I make out here, but this seems to be the general line of argument to me, and I find it baffling. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Enough longtime WikiProject Film editors have avowed that it's a widespread problem that it's bad faith to suggest we're not telling the truth and that you require, what, 20, 30, 50 examples? Your characterization is reductionist, very arguable, and, frankly, insulting for the reason I give in the previous sentence. That is no way to move forward constructively. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not 20, merely enough to establish a pattern; certainly more than 1. And it’s not a matter of believing that anyone’s making anything up; part of it is “trust, but verify,” and part of it is having some concrete thing to talk about. But the core argument has been that CSC is a rule rather than a clarification of a rule (or at least enough editors have kept going back to that enough that it seems like it’s the core argument), reading things into the guidelines that are not there. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You know ... it's not going your way, and so you keep moving the goalposts. I quote you: "Name one. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2015." Now you want "certainly more than 1." That's amazing.

It's a real issue. It's a real problem. Numerous editors have attested to this. You're hoping that by assigning us gratuitous busywork that we'll throw up our hands and leave. No. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And as a matter of fact, Gonnym at 05:20, 23 May 2015 noted several films' talk pages where the trivial-awards discussion has taken place. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Which enabled us to finally discuss whether there was, in fact, a widespread problem that we could see and point at in multiple places. And maybe you’re right that I should have enunciated what I thought were common-sense goalposts (if you were to tell me that it wasn’t common sense that “one is an anomaly, two is a coincidence, three is a pattern,” I would be surprised), or maybe I should have made that request less specific; but hindsight is 20/20. Also, I never asked for an unreasonable number of examples, so please don’t make accusations of bad faith based on things that did not happen. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If we've identified an issue, or even a potential issue, that's evidently controversial enough that a significant number of editors have weighed in on it, then does it matter whether we're addressing an existing issue or preempting a potential issue? I'm trying to understand why it's necessary to prove that this is a problem if, were it to exist (and I'm not claiming it doesn't) we could agree that it would be a problem. DonIago (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Doniago: The meta-problem that exists is that some editors are proposing rule changes (albeit, not very clearly, as it hasn't been established where such changes would actually take place), that other editors do not agree with. All the rest is discussion of that underlying issue. Meanwhile, trying to prove the existence of something by pointing to an argument about it is faulty: if I shout "fire" and people start frenziedly arguing about where the fire is, whether there even is one, and what should or shouldn't be done, does not indicate that a fire actually exists, only that there is a...kerfuffle. If there is no problem, there should be no need to discuss extraordinary changes to the existing rules. --Tsavage (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Preemptive rules could be prudent or could be considered WP:CREEP, but that didn’t seem to be what anyone was advocating anyway; rather, some of us were looking for a solution to a problem asserted to already exist in a sufficient number of articles that we needed to consider rewriting and/or reinterpreting the rules. Others weren’t aware that such an issue was even evident and so asked for examples, and the first group took offense to that. The unanswered calls for proof were the result. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Unanswered?? You said, "Name one," and I did. Gonnym at 05:20, 23 May 2015 noted several films' talk pages where the trivial-awards discussion has taken place. How dare you make a false accusation like "unanswered." --Tenebrae (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: I was speaking in the past tense. That request of mine wasn’t the first. It wasn’t the first of mine, and I wasn’t the first. Up to that point, such requests were unanswered for weeks. And a solitary example is hardly proof of a widespread problem (and I’ve already addressed my choice of words there), so they remained unanswered for more weeks until Gonnym’s post. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That's kind of my point; I don't see that whether the problem currently exists is actually relevant because I think it would be beneficial to, if it doesn't already exist, head it off at the pass in any case. DonIago (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless that means generating WP:CREEP. And needlessly restrictive and prescriptive creep, to boot. Regardless of whether the problem is extant or its extent, I would oppose any notion that article-level WP:NOTABILITY trumps content-level WP:NOTEWORTHINESS. To me, the former is only potentially relevant when considering questions of weight—that is, the governing policy is WP:WEIGHT, not and never WP:N. And if receipt of an award is noteworthy enough to be covered in multiple independent sources, it deserves consideration of some weight regardless of whether the award or awarder itself deserve an article. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is what the policy says, and others here have dismissed. Lapadite (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Doniago: I think it would be beneficial to, if [the problem] doesn't already exist, head it off at the pass' The road to hell is paved with unnecessary rules. Wikipedia is simple. We have useful rules, but what keeps this on the road is observing simple basics: we write in clear, non-technical English, we don't take sides or promote particular points of view, we deal in facts that come from somewhere reasonable, not things we just know or make up or conclude, and we discuss, at length if necessary, when we disagree. It's designed to be open and inclusive to all anonymous editors. We don't want to be adding detailed rules for problems that don't exist, or creating rules that impose the favored way of a few on the many. --Tsavage (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attempt to provide me with additional information, I should note that in this case you didn't tell me anything I wasn't already aware of. DonIago (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don’t understand. I explained why the proposed solution was unworkable after you said it would be beneficial. Or were you replying only to Tsavage’s comment? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Doniago: If you were referring in whole or in part to my reply, please note: it was a reminder. To have a discussion, a common point of reference helps, and I'm not sure what that is if you're promoting writing content rules for film awards or anything else, because they could prove to be a good idea. --Tsavage (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If a problem is widespread and a policy suggestion is frequently ignored, that would normally be considered a poor policy. I'm not sure if it's been mentioned here, but policies function best when they are not prescriptive. In other words, they should reflect best practices, as the editors themselves ascertain. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If I read you correctly, I'd certainly agree that following guidelines which say list-criteria must be objective rather than subjective is a best practice — it avoids POV and article-by-article arguments. And the first thing at WP:CSC regarding such criteria is notability. That and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are already in place — clarifying this is not generating WP:CREEP whatsoever. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that we ought to use objective criteria in determining what’s appropriate to include in list articles. Objective criteria such as coverage in multiple independent sources, regardless of what articles we may have. And the means by which the award winners are selected, or by whom, should not subjectively factor into that decision. Where excessive length or clutter is a concern, we can use subsections or selectively limit the list further. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• To illustrate the point: If a high school club named someone Best Actor for Joy Ride, and that was carried in the school paper, I would say it has no place on Wikipedia. But if a school organization gave a similar award and a couple of local (unaffiliated) newspapers independently made mention of it, or especially if non-local sources did so, I would argue that there’s a case for inclusion, depending on the article.
• I feel like I should stress that last bit: It depends on the article. Different articles have different needs, even in the same topic area, and what’s universally considered necessary in one list may be completely unacceptable in another list. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What you're arguing for is the opposite of objective. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is clear that just because something can be cited it is not automatically noteworthy. So who decides if it goes in the list? Of a particular something, I might say no, you might say yes ... and that's subjective POV, not objective criteria.

Your illustration, similarly, even argues for subjective POV ("I would argue that there’s a case for inclusion, depending on the article." Well, someone else might argue not. Again, that's the opposite of objective.) --Tenebrae (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Point is, it’s objectively allowed. We may make an editorial decision against including it, for editorial reasons, but these objective criteria allow it in the list regardless of whether or not we think we need it in the list. There is nothing that says we cannot include it because it doesn’t have a parent article; WP:V does apply to list articles. Also, that interpretation of INDISCRIMINATE has been contested numerous times in this discussion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you're either twisting words deliberately or you don't know the definition of "objective."

And you can contest INDISCRIMINATE all you like, but that doesn't change what it says: "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Or as I put it: "WP:INDISCRIMINATE is clear that just because something can be cited it is not automatically noteworthy." So I'm saying exactly what that policy says. Period. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you’re paraphrasing, and out of the context of context. If something can be cited to multiple independent sources, that means it is noteworthy. How is that not an objective criterion?
I’m not saying we shouldn’t be discriminating. I’m saying we can discriminate more, and we can discriminate less. We have that flexibility. If a list article would be improved by the inclusion of some unlinked but noteworthy awards, or if it would be improved by the removal of some bluelinked awards, we have the ability to improve that article. And we don’t need any all-encompassing micromanaging rules to do that. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you may have missed something I said in an earlier reply: Where excessive length or clutter is a concern, we can use subsections or selectively limit the list further. And we’re able to do that because we can choose different objective selection criteria, which is a key point I don’t think you’ve acknowledged. We can use all ten of actor A’s noteworthy awards, linked or not. We can use all thirty of actor B’s bluelinked awards. We can use the subset of fifty bluelinked awards given to actor C that received major mainstream coverage. We don’t have to hold all award lists to the same set of criteria. Nowhere is that stated or implied. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

We don’t have to hold all award lists to the same set of criteria - We don't. I'd like to know why Tenebrae (and those who echo his arguments) insist on one restrictive criteria for all list articles, without regard to WP:PRESERVE, WP:POLCON, Wikipedia:No_original_research#Verifiability, WP:Source list, and WP:WEIGHT. Lapadite (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, WP:LSC… namely, the fact that it does not say: “Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, supported by reliable sources, and listed in full under 'Common selection criteria' below.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm only replying to you, and answering your question, to stop this mass linking of already answered issues. If this is a wall-of-text, its only one because you linked 5 policies.

• WP:PRESERVE: "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." which in turn says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not [...] an advertising platform." which in turn says (at WP:ARTSPAM) Articles considered advertisements include those that are [...] public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." which can be the case for non-notable organizations that have more search hits because they appear on Wikipedia. WP:PRESERVE also says "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet [...] Verifiability." which in turn says at WP:ONUS that "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." which clearly says that just because its verifiable does not mean it must be included and it also says that in cases where Consensus must be reached the burden is achieve it is on the party seeking to add that content - which in our case is non-notable awards AND you, and not on us to get Consensus for removing it.
• WP:POLCON: "If policy and/or guideline pages directly conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so that all of the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure during that resolution process, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume that the policy takes precedence. - I'm a bit at loss as how this is relevant but I'm replying to this so you won't think I left it out for other reasons. I see no conflict, however, if there is any conflict, as shown above, not including non-notable awards in lists is certainly supported by the policy.
• Wikipedia:No_original_research#Verifiability: This is a circular argument as the hatnote leads to the main article on this subject, which is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which in turn leads to WP:ONUS which I quoted above.
• WP:Source list: "Besides being useful for such feedback, a talk page discussion is also a good review process for reaching consensus before [emphases in the original text] adding an item that is difficult or contentious [...]" - This clearly states (as this discussion has proven this issue is contentious) that if we go down this road it will be on you to go in each talk page of each award article, state your opinion on why you think adding non-notable awards is improving the article and get consensus, not on us. Do you really want this to go like this? WP:Source list also has a hatnote which leads to further information at WP:LSC which it and WP:CSC I won't quote as we already know what they say.
• WP:WEIGHT: I'm unable at the moment to find the text in this policy to be on either side. It seems WP:NPOV does not answer the question of whether non-notable awards should be added or removed. If someone can find a passage to either side, go ahead.
• As 174.141.182.82 made a comment while I was answering, I'll answer to his WP:LSC addition also. You are correct, the text does not add "and listed in full under 'Common selection criteria' below". However, paragraph structure in any written document assumes that the reader knows that if a section is a sub-section of another section (in our case - WP:CSC is a sub-section of WP:LSC) then the sub-section is intended to clarify and add more detailed information. Also, while you are correct that CSC may not list all kinds of list articles available (I'm just going by what you said, such argument would need to be proven, by you), it does say regarding CSC#1 "Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.". So while CSC list may or may not be full, CSC#1 is the criteria many FL articles go with (which seems like a community Consensus).

I hope this satisfies you so we can move on from this subject. --Gonnym (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

How would one disprove something that there’s no indication of being the case? Anyway, I never said we can’t use CSC #1. I’m saying that we aren’t forced to; that there’s no compulsion to indiscriminately delete anything that’s not bluelinked. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a wall of text request in my comment, as you claimed. I don't know how you furthered anything by quoting guidelines that have already been quoted multiple times as such. WP:POLCON? "if there is any conflict, as shown above, not including non-notable awards in lists is certainly supported by the policy" - Not the case, WP:NOTABILITY tells you it has nothing to do with "notability" of article content, and the converse (including reliably sourced awards as they are relevant to the article topic) is certainly supported by policies and guidelines. And see WP:POLCON's second paragraph. You ignore the part of WP:OR and WP:V that states: Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. WP:ONUS tells you that consensus (and Consensus isn't that which contradicts policies & guidelines) should determine what information should or shouldn't be presented in an article on a case by case basis; e.g., controversial or ambiguous info in a BLP. It is not telling you that awards need their own topic article in order to be reliably sourced. Like WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it's being cited as if it closes the book on the question that was asked here: Do awards need to be blue linked in order to be sourced in a list article? You're saying, yes, because ONUS says verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. So every other piece of info in an article needs a topic article in order to be included in an article because verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. Again, this is purely WP:WIKILAWYERING → "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles; Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express". WP:Source list states, which you've passed over: "When an item meets the requirements of the Verifiability policy, people reading or editing the list can check an item's reference to see that the information comes from a reliable source. For information to be verifiable, it also means that Wikipedia does not publish original research: its content is determined by information previously published in a good source, rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors, or even the editor's interpretation based on but beyond what the source actually says." WP:WEIGHT is a relevant policy as it pertains to the presentation of the list with respect to concerns over giving undue weight to "minor" awards. It's been addressed several times. Plus, WP:WEIGHT says: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Lapadite (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

You've asked how an argument can be made against inclusion with regards to 5 policy links. I do not know how to make that argument without talking about and quoting those policies without my argument falling short. You've basically ignored my points and went on arguing other stuff, as such, I'm exiting this conversation with you as for me, its leading to no where. Good luck to anyone still standing. --Gonnym (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Tenebrae, there is actual WP:WIKILAWYERING, of which you'd wrongly accused others who disagreed (attributing to wall of text and requests for further examples). E.g., WP:WIKILAWYERING → "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles; Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express; Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions".

What was originally asked in the RfC is if the present policies and guidelines allowed sourced list items without WP articles, or more specifically, sourced awards without WP articles. Evidently, yes, they do. You're calling for more "objective" criteria to be appended to guidelines yes? Great, make a formal proposal. A wikiproject isn't the venue for proposals. Wikiprojects don't further restrict policies and guidelines, nor conflict with them or reinterpret their underlying principles for articles within their scope. Ad nauseam and circular arguments here about what ought to be in the guidelines or how they should be interpreted for particular articles is not going to change them. Why don't you make a proposal in the appropriate page(s) if you insist on more objective or restrictive measures? Lapadite (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: You keep using WP:INDISCRIMINATE (aka WP:RAWDATA, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:NOTLYRICS, and others) in a way that is inconsistent with the actual policy, which is about data collected for its own sake, without a normal article context, like just the lyrics for every non-copyrighted song, or the complete changelog of Microsoft Word since its inception. A list of awards given to a particular film, where each award is verifiable, is a completely different situation, a clearly and unambiguously discriminate collection. Why do you continue to misapply this piece of policy?

This is all set out clearly in WP:DISCRIMINATE, which is linked to by the policy at INDISCRIMINATE. In part it says: Since the policy specifically states "indiscriminate" and does not provide any guidelines for disallowing a certain level "discriminate" collection of information, then a discriminate collection of information would not violate the policy. It also clearly supports that a list of film awards for a particular recipient is discriminate, not indiscriminate - "lists ... assembled with thought" - where there is a consistent relationship between each item in the list, and with the overall topic of the list. That negates your argument. --Tsavage (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

See last comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film: Do list items need their own WP article in order to be sourced in list articles? - So what now? --Gonnym (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone could make a formal proposal for a change, at an appropriate venue. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

IF this is the option taken, I would argue that it would be to the benefit of all sides if a proposal draft would be worked on so we'd at least go into the next discussion agreeing on what we are not agreeing upon. Noting in advance that I do not wish to take this upon myself. --Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, absolutely. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

And I do need to say that "we can choose different objective selection criteria" is an oxymoronic statement: If we're all choosing different criteria, then it's subjective. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Per article. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward with suggestion from previous thread

Based on suggestions by Erik II and Ring Cinema, in a much more productive and smaller scale previous discussion on this topic from Jan. 2014 - one which trailed off (I referred to it earlier above) - Tenebrae came up with the following as a way to organize film awards:

Off the top of my head, I can think of • Academies (i.,e Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, The British Academy of Film and Television Arts, etc.) • Professional Guilds (i.e. Screen Actors Guild, Writers Guild, American Society of Cinematographers, etc.) • Nationally Televised Awards not already in the above (i.e., MTV Awards, People's Choice Awards, etc. — this gives us an objective, bright-line criterion for such miscellanea); • Professional Critics Groups (i.e., New York Film Critics Circle, which does not include non-notable amateur bloggers or non-professional movie fans, like the Phoenix Film Critics does); • Regional Critics Groups (the ones that include unpaid amateur, hobbyist critics).

This could be a start. Other editors might have ideas on where something like the venerable, quasi-academic National Board of Review or miscellanea like the Alliance of Women Film Journalists or the Online Film Critics Society would go. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a useful organization, applied where needed (longer lists, probably), that accommodates both those who feel that some awards get undue weight by being included with other, more prominent awards, and those who favor comprehensive inclusion, and should make manageable the longest of lists. Determining which category to include a list in seems straightforward for most cases, and not OR, relying mainly on the title and verifiable type of membership.

This sort of solution was also suggested early in this thread. Personally, I don't think it's necessary to create another guideline for this, but a well-formed formal suggestion probably wouldn't hurt, like, "In some cases, this may be a useful organization for film awards..." Not all categories need be used in every list, it's as usual a per article thing. --Tsavage (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Except that in the interim, a number of those regional groups, by proper deletion process and editorial consensus, have been determined to be non-notable. We should not be cluttering up pages with meaningless "awards" from non-notable organizations. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A year ago, you brought up this same alleged problem, met oppoosition, then through discussion, agreed to and developed this tentative solution, which is still as applicable now as it was then, nothing external has changed. The difference now from what I can gather is, internally, there has been a steady flow of successful critic group AfDs (including deletion of award mentions across multiple arcticles), with very few, at times only two or three, editors participating in the AfD process. --Tsavage (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

They are deemed "non-notable" for not passing the WP:NOTABILITY criteria to warrant their own article - you know, the policy that "does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion (Afd) is for deleting articles that don't meet WP:NOTABILITY, not for deleting reliably sourced info in articles. Lapadite (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm only going to say a) I quoted WP:INDISCRIMINATE verbatim somewhere further up, and it clearly says what I said it says; and b) if an organization is non-notable, then how can its awards possibly be notable? In the absence of closure, which editors on both sides of the aisle have requested, I guess it ends up that the editors who want to include every single trivial award issued by anybody anywhere and the editors that don't may well have to deal with this article-by-article. I'm kind of looking forward to debates over the appropriateness and usefulness of the West Bumflick Critics Society's Foreign-Language Male Supporting Actor Award. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You quoted it out of context, obscuring the intended meaning. The important bit is: “data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources.” I argue that citing independent sources qualifies in the case of noteworthy awards, and unless I’m mistaken, you haven’t once addressed that option. Now, maybe no independent reliable source anywhere has ever discussed a West Bumflick Critics award. That’s fine; that means we don’t even have to consider the question. I’m not even sure what you’re arguing against at this point. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It has been stated countless times that this is about reliable secondary sources covering awards. If reliable secondary sources don't report on a "West Bumflick Critics award" then it would obviously not be included. Lapadite (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If it doesn't have a WP article, it shouldn't be included. That's the general consensus. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It’s a bit too contentious to claim this discussion has a consensus at this point… judging by Wikipedia’s content rules, the general (project-wide) consensus doesn’t even take the existence of other articles into account. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't waste your time there. He's just reiterating the same thing he's said since before the RfC (i.e., "there's a wikiproject consensus, you're wrong"), without adding anything new (or contributing anything) to this discussion. Lapadite (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to make sure the straw man is well and truly dead…

• Things that receive no coverage of any sort from reliable secondary sources are not suitable to mention in an encyclopedia.
• Trivial and meaningless awards receive no coverage. This means they are not noteworthy and objectively not suitable for inclusion anywhere.
  • The awarding of trivial and meaningless awards receives no coverage.
  • The existence of trivial and meaningless awards receives no coverage.
• No one is advocating the inclusion of non-noteworthy awards from non-noteworthy presenters. We’re all agreed this is a dumb idea.

Now can we stop confusing this straw man for a horse? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Just the opinion of an uninvolved passer-by

What is the ultimate goal of the current Wikipedia Encyclopedia ? If one thinks that this ultimate goal is to provide some contents in the article space, it could be useful to have an "AYTC: Are You That Convinced?" rule. Before flooding every place with your opinion that XXX is sufficiently notable, prove that at least one person is convinced of that notoriety... and start writing the corresponding article. Ever remember that letter soup topics are to be ruled by a non-involved closing person, who should decide by sufficient evidence. When at most zero persons are that convinced of the notoriety, this could be routinely settled by a NOTNOW ruling.

On the contrary, if one thinks that the ultimate goal is to provide a huge letter soup material and a large battlefield where anybody can exert her fire-phylia, don't change anything: the best recipe has already been found !

Pldx1 (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.