Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [1].

List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations

This list was created to include all major and regional awards and nominations for the film

• Support Looks fine to me. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Comment: I have not been involved in this article prior to nomination, but have helped out since. Any opinions expressed here are completely neutral. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way that you could make the list more in the format of

Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• There is a closing parentheses in the third paragraph of the Lede, but no opening one.
  • done
• The fourth "paragraph" is just a single sentence. Can it be merged into one of the other paras?
  • done
• Please have the use of the poster checked by an image reviewer. I'm not sure it qualifies as fair use in this article because it bears no relation to the awards it won
  • It was removed but further search will be conducted to try and find an acceptable use image of perhaps the Coens accepting one of the awards
• Is there an article for DGA Awards in the Lede? All the other awards are wikilinked
  • done
• What does "collectively as Roderick Jaynes" mean?
  • done clarified and cited
• Why does the table use small writing? What effect does regular sized text have?
  • This is the size text that is now being used in filmographies through
    WP:FILMS
    . See response two points down.
• Since there is the L2 header, "Awards and nominations", why repeat it as another header in the table?
  • Just a table style and the need/desire for enough sub-headings for the TOC
• I'm happy for the format of the table to be used, but simply saying that
  WP:ACTOR
  are going in this direction may not be enough. Do you have links to talk page discussions?
  • See
    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Possible table format, which is progressing toward this format with no dissenting opinions on the style. It's slowed a bit because of the holidays, but Erik
    is developing the guidelines.
• Same for the use of {{
  nominated
  }}. Please provide a link to the discussion where their use is discouraged.
  • This is included in the
    WP:FILMS
    discussion above.
• I think some of the External links could be trimmed. This isn't a Canadian movie, so the official Canadian site could go. Including it is rather arbitrary. Why not the British, German, or Russian official sites? Get rid of the main imdb link, too. This article is about the awards only, so the imdb award page is good enough.
  • done
• References need formatting correctly. Website names should not be itallicised; only titles of books, magazines and newspapers. Terms such as Inc should be removed, and things such as org, .com etc, as in "goldenglobes.org", "GoldenGlobes.org", "BAFTA.org", "theage.com.au" should be recast as the actual names: Golden Globes, BAFTA, The Age. Please wikilink to articles of publishers and publications where available.
  • done Note: Some of the references are from the website of the organizations that gave the awards. Since the awards are linked in the table itself, should they also be linked in the references, or would that be overlinking? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The empty cells may appear to some people as if information is missing. Could an em- or en-dash be used to show that there is no missing info?
  • done

That's all I have for now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the image qualifies as fair use for the reasons Matthew says. I've removed it. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is using mdash appropriate for the tables?
  MOS:DASH does not seem to permit this kind of usage. Maybe use something else or leave it blank? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I added those after the (last) point above - "The empty cells may appear to some people as if information is missing. Could an em- or en-dash be used to show that there is no missing info?" Neither mdash or ndash specifically endorses this, but I've seen dashes used in other FL tables. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as
  BAFTA
  .
• What makes the following sites reliable sources?
  • http://www.chlotrudis.org/
  • http://www.altfg.com/blog/
  • http://www.backstage.com/bso/index.jsp
• Reference 6 needs a publication date. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. BAFTA spelled out and ref date included. Chlotrudis is the source for its own awards, the Boston Society Film Critics Award was given its own source and the Hollywood Reporter article reprinted on Backstage was replaced with the original publisher. Working on the other source. Alternative Film Guide references replaced with refs either from Variety or other pertinent sources. I think that addresses all concerns raised. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an excellent-looking list. Only one issue, which I am not sure is major... since there is no date auto-formatting anymore, would it be better to rewrite the ISO formatting of the dates into American date formatting? Not a deal-breaker, but I tend to fix up the dates like here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the dates used are in the references, unless I've badly overlooked one in the prose. The template examples don't indicate that is required, one uses the "2008-12-29" style. If it's an issue, I'd be glad to change it, but it would help to see a guideline that indicates it. And thanks :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Content is fine, but I have some concerns over the style which echo comments made above.

• Why use an infobox instead of a normal thumbnail for what is essentially an image and a caption? I believe the infobox is intended for articles about actual awards, not lists of awards such as this.
• Why the "Awards and nominations" header in the table? It's redundant to the section header and serves no further purpose, so it could be removed with no detriment to the table or article.
• Would "Recipient" or "Nominee" make a better column heading than "Name"?
• What is the justification for using smaller text? It's not as if space is at a real premium here, so normal sized text would do just fine. While this doesn't make a huge difference to me using IE, for other users on different browsers (such as Firefox) the smaller text size will be quite noticeable. I don't think that this smaller text size is entirely appropriate for the main body of an article.
• I'm not sold on the visual styling of this table as opposed to a standard wikitable (as seen in
  List of Carnivàle awards and nominations, for example). The colours I can take or leave, but the grid lines are far less visible making the table a little harder to read. PC78 (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Response - Most of these comments actually don't echo comments from above. If the infobox is an issue, it can be replaced, I was looking for something a little more visually appealing than just a thumb image. The comment about "Awards and nominations" was made because originally the subtitle also said that, so it is no longer redundant to the subtitle. Since the category called "Names" covers both recipients and nominees, which would you suggest be used that would not ignore the other? As for the table style comments, you didn't raise opposition to this at the discussion for the table styling, so why are you raising it here now? This was created on Firefox and the font size is not a readability issue, it is a stylistic choice. The grid lines are the same color on this table as the grid lines on the

List of Carnivàle awards and nominations, so on that, I don't see the point you're making. As I noted above, the Carnivàle list is for a television series with a (then) ongoing series of nominations over time, while this is static. Both of the reviewers above withdrew their concerns regarding this list being like that one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

No, some of these points were raised above which you yourself have just acknowledged (I never meant all of them). However, I remain unsatisfied by your comments.

• Infobox: This isn't really a major issue, though it does seem like you're using one for the sake of it. If the article can have an infobox with actual info in it then great, but if not then a thumbnail should suffice. I don't think it does anything for the "visual appeal" of the article.
• "Awards and nominations" heading in the table: Of course this is still redundant, a rewording of the section header doesn't change that. You only need one heading for the table, not two that say essentially the same thing. My point above stands.
• "Recipient" or "Nominee": Neither of these terms are exclusive. However, this was merely a suggestion which you may take or leave.
• Table style: In the discussion we had at
  WT:FILM (which trailed off without any definitive conclusion) I said at several points that I preferred the default styling of "class=wikitable" and that I didn't see any reason to employ the syling which you have here. Regarding the text size, of course this is a stylistic choice but it nevertheless has an effect on readability. The smaller text adds nothing obvious to the article besides the rather dubious sense that it is more visually appealing, and I maintain my position that such reduced text it inappropriate for the main body of an article such as this. My point about the grid lines being less visible should be quite obvious; the lines may be the same colour, but the background colour of the table is darker, hence they sand out less. But my primary concern here is with regard to the text size. PC78 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It wasn't my view that it trailed off without conclusion. It was left off at attempting to develop specific guidelines. You are raising objections here to my FL review much stronger than you bothered to object on

List of Little Miss Sunshine awards and honors list "is essentially the same as how [you] set up awards tables". When I compare that, it also has the similar background color. You also objected to the awards table used on Mulholland Drive (film), which uses even smaller text and definitively distinct background color, but that is a featured article. I'm at a bit of a loss for a response here beyond this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I did change the text size to a larger set, but just to reiterate, I see no difference in table backgrounds between this and the Little Mis Sunshine and Carnivale lists. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, it does at least alleviate my primary concern. If I am raising my objections much stronger here than in the previous discussion, it is because I felt that discussion was more to establish a basic layout for such tables rather than the more specific styling we are discussing here. I don't recall any "enthusiastic endorsment" for your preffered style either; I don't believe it was commented on much one way or the other. To give you some comparative examples, all other film-related featured lists use bog standard tables without any such styling that you are using here; certainly none of them use anything other than full size text. A final word about the background/gridline colours: if you truly see no difference beween this list and (for example)

List of Little Miss Sunshine awards and honors then I'm inclined to think that this is another browser issue. To me the lines on your list stand out far less, and while it isn't a major issue here, in some such lists this does IMHO affect readability. Anyway, it's late so I'll have another look at this tomorrow before I withraw my opposition. PC78 (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It must be a browser issue, because I truly see no difference in the gridlines. On this list, there is a darker gridline between the major awards (Academy, BAFTA, etc.) but if I recall, it didn't appear that way to you previously, although others didn't say that. I looked at the table on Christmas day from a computer using Internet Explorer and don't recall a line problem there, but then she had her computer set up oddly anyway. On my computer, the background of the tables on all three lists we've mentioned are the same color as the background in the Wikipedia styling around the outside of the articles. As an aside note, in the near future, organizations will begin to release updated lists of top films, and I suspect that No Country will be included on some of those. If that happens, I would think that a secondary table would be developed to include those top film lists, much as the Carnivale list does now. To go back to the

Mullholland Drive (film) FA, I see less line distinction on the recipient/nominees column than on this one. After looking at that, I did change the "Names" column to "Recipients and nominees" on this one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, a few minor issues that will need resolving. There are two blank entries in the "Outcome" column (San Diego & Vancouver awards), and ref #50 is missing a retrieval date. Also (and this one isn't a deal breaker), all of the external links except the IMDb one are just generic links for the film, which seem better left to the main film article. Are these really necessary? PC78 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how the blanks happened, but apparently no one noticed that before and were accidental absent spaces. Those are fixed as is the retrieval date, which was a misplaced |. I thought the Box Office Mojo and critic pages were interesting, but they weren't essential, so I removed those, but left the IMDB awards page and the official site link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article is well written, comprehensive and fully referenced, and that's what's really important here, though I retain a few misgivings over the style issues discussed above. I have, however, made the following changes:

• Replaced the infobox with a thumnail per my comments above. Other film-related FLs such as
  List of Japanese submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film
  look just fine with a thumbnail, and there's no reason why this article should be any different. I've also added a bit of context to the caption.
• Removed the heading from the table and renamed the section heading accordingly. Again, I still don't see any good reason to have two headings, and I'm not seeing it in other film-related FLs. I could understand if the table was split into two or more sections, but that isn't the case here.

By all means feel free to revert if you feel strongly enough about either of these changes, though I would ask that you state your reasons here. My support stands regardless. PC78 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. I am trying to think of something to do with the heading in order to retain the blue, which I think gives the page a bit of needed color. Perhaps adding a separate section with top ten lists as they occur? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This