Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 3 May 2015

Skip to table of contents • Skip to bottom • Start new discussion

Shortcuts WT:FILM WT:FILMS WT:MOVIES

WikiProject Film
General information ( v t e ) Main project page + talk → Discussion archives Style guidelines talk → Multimedia talk → Naming conventions talk → Copy-editing essentials talk Notability guidelines talk Announcements and open tasks talk → Article alerts → Cleanup listing → New articles talk → Nominations for deletion talk → Popular pages → Requests talk Spotlight talk Film portal talk Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Departments Assessment talk → B-Class → Instructions Categorization talk Core talk Outreach talk Resources talk Review talk Spotlight talk → Spotlight cleanup listing Topic workshop talk
Task forces General topics Film awards talk Film festivals talk Film finance talk Filmmaking talk Silent films talk Genre Animated films talk Christian films talk Comic book films talk Documentary films talk Marvel Cinematic Universe talk Skydance Media talk War films talk Avant-garde and experimental films talk National and regional American cinema talk Argentine cinema talk Australian cinema talk Baltic cinema talk Belgian cinema talk British cinema talk Canadian cinema talk Chinese cinema talk French cinema talk German cinema talk Indian cinema talk Israeli cinema talk Italian cinema talk Japanese cinema talk Korean cinema talk Mexican cinema talk New Zealand cinema talk Nordic cinema talk Pakistani cinema talk Persian cinema talk Southeast Asian cinema talk Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk Spanish cinema talk Uruguayan cinema talk Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates banner DVD citation DVD liner notes citation infobox invite plot cleanup stub userbox

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Editathon

Editathon Invitation  Celebrating Charlie Chaplin's film The Tramp at London's Cinema Museum, Kennington    This is a free event, one of a series of editathons which Wikimedia UK organises in conjunction with a variety of host organisations..    When? Saturday, 7 March 2014, 11am-4pm    Where? 2 Dugard Way (off Renfrew Road) London SE11 4TH.    Point of contact: Fabian Tompsett (fabian.tompsettwikimedia.org.uk) for Wikimedia UK. Further details and Registration: Education Program:Wikimedia UK/Cinema Museum 2015 (Spring 2015)

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 12:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There was this discussion at the MOS page which seemed to reach this consensus. Lugnuts 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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, ; 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture WikiProjects and collaborations When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Misplaced Pages reflect this type of editorial judgment.

Indiscriminate lists help no one. Even WP:NOTESAL notes, "ditors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages articles. Can those kind of red-linked awards & award nominations be properly sourced in any Misplaced Pages 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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, "ditors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages’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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.; Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Misplaced Pages 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) 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 Misplaced Pages notability criteria" so it fails that requirement as well. Misplaced Pages "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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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; Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Verifiability: "Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 10:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What guidelines was I going against when removing non-notable awards? In my years on Misplaced Pages, 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.), Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Verifiability (Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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: "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages." If an organization isn't notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages after a lengthy deletion consensus debate. All you're doing is showing your desire to stuff Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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) 12:35, 1 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages-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? Misplaced Pages 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, "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. That's why I see WP:CSC #1 as applicable. Erik II (talk | contrib) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages has an article?" — Rhododendrites \\ 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Proposals

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Each WikiProject should decide for itself whether the list articles under its care should require every item to pass WP:NOTABILITY.
5. 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 \\ 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)

Producer/writer/composer filmography navboxes consensus

Discussion at Misplaced Pages 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 ‎Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#RFC: Filmography navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:37, 22 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 09:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This Misplaced Pages:List of hoaxes on Misplaced Pages/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 16:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Italics for series titles

Please see Misplaced Pages 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)

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

I see that there is a dispute going on at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pornography#Preferred disambiguator: "actor/actress" or "pornographic actor/actress"? (WP:Permalink here). And I know that some Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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 17:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Aaaaaaand that's now over. Adios, Accolades. KDS4444 19:00, 2 May 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 Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_25#Template:Infobox_television_film. Betty Logan (talk) 19:12, 25 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

• WikiProject Film talk pages
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment