Talk:Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play

	Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 25, 2012 Featured list candidate Promoted June 21, 2020 Featured list removal candidate Kept
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 7, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that five actresses have won the Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play more than once, but no actress has won it more than twice?
Current status: Featured list

This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Awards Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Theatre Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Trivia sections are discouraged, and the one in this article probably needs to be removed or better incorporated into the article (sources wouldn't hurt, either). —

A few responses based on your "preferred" version (and with the background knowledge that the current page has a consensus in its current form from the community during its recent successful FLC)

• How do you know what people are coming to this page for?
• What does "within the graph built" mean? Not wishing to appear rude, but is English your first language?
• References should ideally come from reliable third-party sources, not just primary sources. The version of the page which has community consensus hardly suffers from
  WP:CITEKILL
  , have you looked at featured articles etc lately or are you new to the processes we use here on Wikipedia to promote our best material?
• Instead of entirely removing links to pages which are sort-of relevant, you'd be better advised to link them to the Broadway page article (which doesn't exist) so we have a redlink that will encourage editors to create the page.
• How do you know that people want "the amount of winners and nominees" in separate sections "for sure"? The community consensus reached at the aforementioned FLC didn't seem to draw the same conclusion as you have asserted.

Specifically to "your version":

• Why should the page not be illustrated? Per
  WP:WIAFL
  we should "images and other media, if appropriate to the topic" which these current images certainly are.
• Why would you remove the lead entirely? Per
  WP:WIAFL
  we should have an "engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria".
• Why would you contravene the
  MOS:BOLD
  failures?
• Why would you have two sections for "totals", one of which is effectively blank and the other which the current version allows by sorting the table by name?
• Why would you contravene the
  WP:MOS
  with the incorrect use of double hyphens?
• Why would you create tables that fail to meet
  WP:WIAFL
  ?
• Why would you contravene
  WP:ACCESS
  with the use of colours without accompanying symbology?
• Why would you use incorrectly formatted references and call them (incorrectly) "External Links"?

I could go on and on.... However, I think if you have adequate answers as to why we shouldn't follow the

featured list criteria, why we should have no lead and no illustrations, why we should destroy a set of perfectly excellent references, and the above more general questions, then we can have a sensible debate on why your "version" should be the one the community adopts, rather than the one reviewed in detail and supported by the community. I look forward to hearing more from you. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you prove what you're saying please? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove? not sure how I can prove my theatre background to you? Clearly I have a passion and interest in the page

talk) 13:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No, prove what people are coming to this page for. I care little for your background, it's entirely irrelevant here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "within the graph built" mean? Not wishing to appear rude, but is English your first language? Yes, English is my first language, I live in the Midwestern region of the United States. By that comment I meant that the chart that is built (not sure how else to say it)(which I haven't seen in any other awards listing on Wiki) is much more complicated than the one I used and more easier to adjust if needed. The sizes the editor used for the font are too small for the nominees and the winners box has extra and too much space. The list I built shows every nominee and their character names easily and simply and is the format most used on Wikipedia. This is the format used for the

It's a table. It's not complicated at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the coding for the table it is much more complicated than what my version uses, the current version uses a default sort on every word instead of doing what I did which was personally look up and verify each link

talk) 13:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Complex coding is irrelevant, as long as it matches the requirements of MOS etc. It gives the reader a better experience. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References should ideally come from reliable third-party sources, not just primary sources. The version of the page which has community consensus hardly suffers from WP:CITEKILL, have you looked at featured articles etc lately or are you new to the processes we use here on Wikipedia to promote our best material?

I actually think the article is highly overkilled on references. I mean a reference for each year is just not necessary and makes it harder to read when you already have so many names there, having an extra bar just for references makes the page look much to busy and I personally like things as simple and neat as possible. I don't understand why so many references are needed when you can click to the Tony Awards page link available at the end of the page and verify instantly the nominees and winners. (Internet Broadway Database is another excellent reference site)

Not in the slightest. Please see other featured material to get a grip with the amount of referencing typically expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of entirely removing links to pages which are sort-of relevant, you'd be better advised to link them to the Broadway page article (which doesn't exist) so we have a redlink that will encourage editors to create the page.

I've always found the red links to be an eyesore, especially when they are all over the page. Most of the plays that don't have individual pages are because they were very small and didn't having long runs so not enough is known or remembered to build their own page, so it's likely they never will (or shouldn't) have their own page anyway. In the current editor's version, most of the links go to pages of the movies based on those plays that have little to no information about the Broadway production, and I don't think it's worth having a link there if it's not going to give the reader what they are most likely looking for which is information about the Broadway play.

Your preference. Red links encourage authors to write new articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that people want "the amount of winners and nominees" in separate sections "for sure"? The community consensus reached at the aforementioned FLC didn't seem to draw the same conclusion as you have asserted.

First of all, I looked at the Featured List discussion for this page, and there were hardly enough editors involved for it to be called a 'community' consensus, and in reading the comments they all had to do with the opening paragraph wording, most of which is redundant and irrelevant and doesn't need to be there. When nominations come out (they are coming out on Tuesday May 1st) the first thing us awards folks do is adjust the tallies for who has the most nominations and for what characters if the characters have been nominated before. We can build are own lists, but it would be nice if it would be on Wikipedia for everyone to see, as it is at the bottom of almost every other page, see Academy Award for Best Actress. I know people involved in theatre obsess over the Tony Awards and having this information available would be a valuable tool for readers to be able to have a quick reference instead of trying to count someones amount of total nominations themselves.

Your opinion. No evidence provided. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the page not be illustrated? Per WP:WIAFL we should "images and other media, if appropriate to the topic" which these current images certainly are.

The photos take up a quarter of the page, and are not needed. I would say maybe if it was say, photos of the actresses in character, which would be cool, but not just a copy of their page's pictures. Plus how do you decide who gets a picture and who doesn't? Doesn't seem fair to me.

No, they are used down the side of the page to occupy whitespace. Why is whitespace better than no images? We decide who gets a picture by getting consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion anywhere on who was chosen for a picture

talk) 13:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Feel free to start one. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you remove the lead entirely? Per WP:WIAFL we should have an "engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria". There really doesn't need to be a lead. Like I've stated above, I like things simple and the leader as written is hard to read. For instance, there is a whole sentence stating who recently won the award, when the same information is in the info box. The rest of the information is already found on the main Tony Awards page. There is also a whole sentence stating who the 1st winner is when the 1st winner is seen without even having to scroll down the page (Patricia Neal). Like I stated above there really isn't any relevant statement that needs to be there and it just makes the page look messy and cluttered, if it is required that the page have a lead, it can be reduced greatly.

Staggeringly ill informed. All articles should have an engaging lead summarising the main features of the article. This, in no way, "clutters" the page. Please see any featured material to see what is expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you contravene the WP:MOS with heading format failures? With MOS:BOLD failures? Sort of the same as above, I could see if this was a complicated list or topic that needs further explaining, but when you click on an award category the reader is most likely looking for what my version clearly and simply states in what I believe is the best way Wikipedia can offer.

No, you need to understand that your version has a vast array of MOS failures and that's entirely unacceptable for any featured material. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you have two sections for "totals", one of which is effectively blank and the other which the current version allows by sorting the table by name? Well one is the actors total and one is the character total, for example a young student in drama school that is cast in a production of Anna Christie might find it interesting that the character of Marthy Owen has been nominated twice for a Tony Award. With a long list, it can be hard to find and count yourself how many times the character or actor has been nominated, but with a accurate and updated reference list at the bottom of the page, they would easily be able to find this information. The same way if say, someone wanted to know how many times Frances Sternhagen has been nominated.

Why would you contravene the WP:MOS with the incorrect use of double hyphens? Why would you create tables that fail to meet MOS:DTT, another requirement of WP:WIAFL? Why would you contravene WP:ACCESS with the use of colours without accompanying symbology? Why would you use incorrectly formatted references and call them (incorrectly) "External Links"?

These are getting a little nit-picky. I am not aware of the exact guidlines when it comes to things like double hyphens, however within my version these can be easily fixed to go along with what is required compared to the current editors version where the information in the list does not exist.

Pretty much, in summary, you're saying "I like my version best, because I think it's better than the current one" and in no way backing it up with science or with MOS or WIAFL. The whole point of being part of Wikipedia's finest work is to meet the criteria as outlaid in

WP:MOS. I suggest you try to get some consensus that your version is preferred by the community over the existing one. Otherwise I suggest you try reading MOS and understanding how many errors there are in your version. Actually, you should do that anyway because I see you're turning a few other pages into the state you tried to convert this. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh I see, you want it to be made a lot worse so it's not considered to be Wikipedia's finest work any more? Gotcha. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's one person's opinion (yours). Have an awesome day!

Not really, that's the point of the community consensually agreed

FA criteria. The ones you don't consider important. You have an awesomer day!! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

[1] You're right, I don't give a damn about the Tony awards, and no, I don't have a "background in Theatre". The current version is very similar to all Grammy awards listed at

talk) 13:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

so why choose to spend time re-doing something you have no interest in? There are other editors that focus on editing Theatre pages that I'm sure would more align to what I'm trying to explain about what is wrong with the way you have the page.

talk) 13:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

There's nothing wrong with the page. It has a community consensus that suggests in its current form that it's amongst the best here. Your version is full of problems. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I supported the promotion of the list in its FLC state, and would be sternly opposed to a huge remodelling of it now. Rambling Man has already highlighted multiple reasons why the proposed change is frankly terrible from a technical perspective, and it's also worth noting that to completely overhaul the page so soon after it has been promoted to Featured status in another state is essentially cheating this new version through FLC without any consensus for it. The proposed change contravenes many of the FL requirements, with no convincing reason for doing so. GRAPPLE X 14:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I echo what TRM and Grapple have said above you version is inadequate in regards to the criteria for a featured list. The list has been recognised as some of wikipedia's finest work, to totally overhaul the page and make it worse, primarily because you don't agree with the layout is abhorrent. The current layout was decided by consensus, it appears there will be no consensus for your version, as wikipedia works by consensus and not one man committee's I would suggest dropping your argument, as you're unlikely to get anywhere. NapHit (talk) 15:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Rharrington112: Editors are encouraged to work on a wide range of diverse articles, and only working in one small area can lead to a lack of perspective on what an encyclopedia is designed to do. What these other editors are telling you is that there are many considerations that go into making an article, for example we have to balance our view of "what looks nice" against how it would sound to a blind visitor who uses assistive technology. Similarly, a table which is sortable makes it easy to see that no play has ever featured more than once among the winners. There is also no doubt whatsoever that a massive consensus exists that all articles should have a lead which introduces a subject and provides an overview of it, and I'm afraid you will gain no support for removing leads from articles "because [you] like things simple". Try to look a number of featured

lists

, even if it's only in the fields that interest you. A lot of people have put a lot of effort (and a lot of compromises) into those, and they illustrate what the community thinks is the best work on Wikipedia.

I don't want to be entirely negative, so let me encourage you to discuss some of things where you may be able to find some common ground to improve the article. I'd take seriously any proposal to increase the font size of the other nominees. We know that doing so would increase the display length of the list, but it is worth debating whether that is a good reason to make it difficult for old folks like myself to read that text. You also might be able to convince other editors that a different selection of pictures would be an improvement, or that it is worth including a summary of most-nominated characters (probably in the lead). I know it's difficult to gauge how others feel when you are new to editing, but try to look for areas where you might be able to reach a

WP:WIAFL. --RexxS (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank You

talk) 22:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright RH, let's try to focus on improving the article a little bit at a time. Please try not to comment on other editors; remember you're going to need to work with them to find common ground, and you'll need to convince all of them in order to make big changes. I'll make a new section below as an example of how to look at an issue (a new section is usually best to keep it on topic). I'd recommend you always take this sort of approach whenever you want to make changes to featured content, as there will already be a strong consensus that such an article will have few areas capable of significant improvement. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RexxS, making such substantial changes really needs discussion so it's best to make improvements (in line with

WP:WIAFL) one step at a time. I note your comment "nor was I trying to make the version I changed it to into a Featured List nominee", I find that odd, this is already a featured list. Your edits, if kept, would no doubt make the list no longer featured, i.e. no longer Wikipedia's finest work. Is that really what you're trying to achieve? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

By all means "highly disagree" with the fact that the community agreed that this is a featured list. By all means work to "improve" it by making all the errors, removing the lead, removing the references, etc which you consider to be the right way forward. By all means nominate the list at

WP:WIAFL this list fails to meet. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I edited the article to show how it looks with full sized text for the nominees, but I've restored the consensus version, and we can now compare them. If I were to print out the "small" version, it would use 15 pages of A4, whereas the "large" version would require 18 pages of A4. That's quite an increase in the length (20%) and many editors will feel that's a heavy price to pay in terms of scrolling to read all of the list. Of course, I like the larger text because I can read it on my big monitor without my reading glasses. I can't do that with the smaller text, and on a laptop I need my higher-strength glasses for the latter, although I tend to zoom my browser for laptop viewing anyway. There's how I feel about the font-size suggestion, what do others think? --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the larger font size as well for the same reasons :) The winners already get their own space to the side so their is no need to make the nominees differentiated by font size. Also, if you look at the edit history, someone recently tried to add character names to the list, which Albacore reverted...again...people viewing this page want and appreciate the character names for the nominees AND the winners. So, your going to probably be having a lot of people trying to change it over the course of time. But, one thing at a time I spose'.

talk) 03:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Larger font is fine by me, I never really like the idea of using smaller fonts as it's fine for normal sighted folks but not fine for everyone else. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this list does not include the names of the characters that the actresses were nominated for, which is a huge part of any list of nominations for acting. Can we please form a consensus that the characters names are an important and missing part of this "Featured List" (the article had the character names before, but the creator of the list will not add them without consensus). HesioneHushabye (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the revisions for question are the current version vs the proposed change. I oppose the change, primarily because the ability make comparisons becomes unnecessarily difficult: sorting is lost and would not be easily restored, and the tables are separate and staggered. The current version has passed a communal process, twice, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play/archive1. Adding the names of character nominees seems like excessive detail at the cost of sortability and accessibility, two key features of featured lists. Seattle (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we know you oppose the change, you created the list. and keep removing when other users try to add the character names like every other list of acting nominations on Wikipedia. it's an important and missing part of the article and why someone would be looking at the page in the first place, that comes first instead of "sortability?" HesioneHushabye (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 8 Tony Acting awards (male/female, play/musical, lead/supporting or whatever Tony people call this last one) should all be the same. The Tony Awards should also be the same as the

WP:WAWARD) 00:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support having character names. Why should we suppress important information? There's no logic in that. This is an encyclopedia. Keeping them does not affect sortability or accessibility whatsoever, since only the winners (not the nominees) include the character name. Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It makes sense to include them. JDDJS (talk) 02:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK

OK. For style purposes moving forward, which would you say is the better revision: the current version or the proposed change? Seattle (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the proposed version is what matches the other pages on Wikipedia that users and readers are used to. please add the character names and I don't see the need for the pictures on the side either. I also like when there are breaks in-between the decades so that it's not one long, continuous list .it's hard to read if you are looking for a specific year. HesioneHushabye (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a consensus in Hesione's thread. There is no reason for you to coopt the discussion by reposting your post under your own subthread so that either the debate and consensus becomes hidden above or every single person has to re-post their !vote for no good reason. Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: Please, don't assume the worst. I want to determine if the current version should stay and I should just add the character names to the "Nominees" section of the current article or if the list should revert to the old version. Seattle (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You @Softlavender: the user Seattle seems to only be interested in making Featured Lists and not caring about the content or the purpose of the article and has been very stubborn about any proposed changes. HesioneHushabye (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the images definitely need to go. Those always block space needed for chart information. In terms of the style, as TonyTheTiger said, it should match every other Tony actors' awards article, and any topic-wide change for the Tonys actors' awards articles should require a consensus clearly called out and debated/!voted on every single one of those articles to establish a sitewide consensus. Otherwise, there's no justification for any change. And I'm in agreement with him that the styles should ideally match the comparable articles for the

• Support character names and would also be in favour of the tables being split by decade, which makes these kind of pages easier to read. L1975p (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well we have a clear consensus that the character names belong on the page, and I doubt Seattle will add them himself so I will do it in the next few days. Thank You everyone for your input. HesioneHushabye (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This "consensus" is void because of

When HesioneHushabye opened up a discussion calling for a consensus on the format of the Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play at [2], I supported the formation of a consensus before such a stylistic change.

What I take issue with is the canvassing used to get those users to the conversation:

1.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Angelic-alyssa&diff=prev&oldid=621132702 (mentions "I know you have tried adding character names to Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play and I have as well")

2.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyTheTiger&diff=prev&oldid=621133290 ("I think the character names are an important part of the list and should be there.")

3.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Therequiembellishere&diff=prev&oldid=621133713 (same as 2)

4.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alrofficial&diff=prev&oldid=621134225 (same as 2)

5.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:L1975p&diff=prev&oldid=621134154 (same as 2)

6.) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Flami72&diff=prev&oldid=621133965 (same as 2)

In all of these, the user notes "The creator of the list refuses to add them because it is a "Featured List" of his".

In my view, these changes violate Wikipedia:Canvassing because the user is contacting other users with the intent of swaying the outcome of something that should form naturally; the tactic HesioneHushabye used reminds me of a push poll.Seattle (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can not void after a consensus has been reached. Please make the changes several Wikipedia users have agreed upon HesioneHushabye (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204062042/http://www.tonyawards.com/en_US/archive/pastwinners/index.html to http://www.tonyawards.com/en_US/archive/pastwinners/index.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most Tony Award pages are formatted with:

• a single row per nominee
• winners are highlighted in this particular blue: background:#B0C4DE;

•   indicates the winner

Currently (19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)), 32 / 35 of the existing Tony Awards follow the above format. With that in mind, I'm going to suggest we reformat this page to match the above described format.

Interestingly, it's the other Tony Awards pages which are terrible, not this one. For your interest, please read Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play/archive1 where some of this is discussed. Also remember this has been reviewed and considered amongst the finest lists in Wikipedia. The 32/35 other Tony lists most certainly have not. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you with regards to the information on this page. My suggestion is centered on the organization of that information -- that the data is configured as "long" instead of "wide." Yaakov bressler (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, the community consensus is that the layout of this list is just fine. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with the validity of the format. ("Fine" is correct.) Rather, I'm suggesting the format of the table be converted from wide to long. I'm curious what your reasons are against this change? Yaakov bressler (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the community has agreed that the current format is part of a list considered one Wikipedia's best. And for what it's worth, we can't just use a colour to denote the the winner, that contravenes the

MOS. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

"Because the community has agreed that the current format is part of a list considered one Wikipedia's best." I see. Yaakov bressler (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Under the "Recipients" section, there is a table/chart of winners and nominees. At the very top of the chart, it reads Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play recipients. Is the word "Actor" a typo? Is it supposed to be "Actress"? Or is this some deliberate gender-neutral term? I am unsure, so I didn't want to make any changes. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "Actress".  Băng Tỏa  23:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]