Talk:List of prizes, medals, and awards

Rationalization

This page probably needs some rationalisation, or soon someone will add Bronze swimming medal.

unless this actually links to an article listing all or most of the decorated ... It would be nice to have that for at least one or two of the "British and Commonwealth". Otherwise it might be preferable to detail the system elsewhere.

Note: The "British and Commonwealth" are now at British and Commonwealth orders and decorations Docu 09:12 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

Just added Balzan Prize, reference link at [1], prize winners at [2] I added because I saw some articles had dead links to Balzan, and I added a link from Michel Mayor. And agree about rationalisation, page is quite big, Nobel Peace is duplicated, maybe split into International awards (Nobel, etc) and the rest? Or split off entertainment/sports?-Wikibob | Talk 00:54, 2004 Apr 3 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether to add the National Medal of Technology (awarded by the United States of America) to the Technology section or the section for the individual country. --WhiteDragon 02:36, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I added the Elijah Parish Lovejoy Award, though I have not yet created the article. I intend to in the near future - likely in the next day or two, as soon as I can find the time, hopefully today.

---

What do people think about gradually moving the prizes from this list to the Category scheme?

Wikipedia:Categorization advises not to convert certain lists to Categories:

Comprehensive lists, e.g. "List of all municipalities of Quuxen", annotated lists, and selective lists, e.g. "List of Quuxens that were Bazzed", should not be replaced with categories.

but I'm not sure if this list qualifies, it is partly but sparsely annotated. -Wikibob | Talk 14:11, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

I wouldn't move anything to Categories until the categories are all sorted out. Right now there's a still mess with the heirarchies and conventions of lists, they have not yet settled to the point that they can replace any of the lists that have been carefully constructed here over time. You could start building a parallel category that would in effect mirror this list, but I wouldn't delete any content from the list. --Woggly 15:08, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As it isn't alphabetical, it's a bit hard to make into a category. I agree with Woogly that it may be preferable to build categories for some of the lists expanding Category:Lists rather than to replace the page. -- User:Docu

---

Does anyone feel this page is far too big? Shouldn't it be split up into like different categories: sports prizes, music etc on different pages? Mandel 09:28, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

no, not yet. Jay 10:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I noticed that the "Searle Scholarship Program" [3] is not listed under Science and Tech awards. Can someone please add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vtraja (talk • contribs) 11:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Does anyone think that such awards lists as Fortune 500, Deloitte Fast 500 and Technology 500 are worth mentioning on the page? If yes, can anyone add them? I think they could fit the "Science and technology (general and miscellaneous)" section. Marie flwr (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Bram Stoker Award

Someone should add the Bram Stoker Award. I don't where does it belongs. The NeveR SLeePiNG 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Page is too big!

The question was raised in 2004, but now in 2007 the page is greater than 50K. Can't we split into a List of lists of awards, by various subjects? It would also be much easier to read them and find particular awards. Such a long list is hard to navigate, as well as to read. Even the table of contents is 5-screens-worth long on my screen! --lquilter 01:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more; it would be better served to split the page up into smaller lists of awards, such as a List of scientific awards. That's just my two cents, though. Hsh8 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Music Awards

i don't understand why Music exists in two categories: Humanities, and Entertainment. Shouldn't they be merged? --emerson7 | Talk 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Becuase they are quite different types of award. Although there is an overlap between Music as an art form and academic subject as opposeto as part of the entertainment industry, in terms of awards they mainly fall in to one or other camp. Billlion

Economics

This page needs a separate Economics section - classification of prizes under General Science and Maths are unnecessary!

Also - perhaps this needs to be initially divided under the same basic categorisation as is set by the Nobel prizes Just a thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.129.115 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the criteria for organising the "Honours, military and patriotic medals" section by "Commonwealth" then "Europen Union" and then "Other Nations"? I imagine the Organization of American States (which could be listed ahead of the Commonwealth, as it is arguably the older organization - 1948 vs. 1949) and the African Union feel a little left out. Is there a logical reason NOT to list the nations of the world in alphabetical order? Does anybody mind if I do that? --Blake the bookbinder (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

International Congress of Distinguished Awards

I removed the external links section, as the only potentially pertinent link(s) was to: The International Congress of Distinguished Awards (ICDA) Official website (and the provisional 2006 list)

The only mention I could find of this organization (in a brief googling) was in this book, and their main index page hasn't been updated since 2003.

Just noting here. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Webb Ellis Cup.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Webb Ellis Cup.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Bullmoosebell's changes.

Bullmoosebell has erased the dots from the United States section twice so far. [4][5] I'm not sure why he intends to deprive solely the United States section of its dots, especially when all the other sections have dots as well. I suggested in this edit of mine to either remove the dots from all the other sections, for uniformity purposes, or to leave the section as it is, but unfortunately he decided to revert it without offering any explanation. I'd like to ask him, therefore, to explain the rationale behind his removal of dots from only one section and not from all the others, as right now it is a matter of great mystery to me. --190.19.99.5 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

190.19.99.5, It appears you're taking this way to personal, your defensive posture reflects a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's Manual of Style and Policies & Guidelines (Good Faith Edits, Edit Wars, et cetera). Just know, the dots you're referring to are called punctuation marks, periods specifically. Periods are used to terminate a sentence. Considering this is a bulleted list and not a complete sentence, each entry is not to be formatted with sentence case or punctuation, per Manual of Style. Further clarification is stated in MOS/Lists, under the list styles subsection, "As a matter of style, list items should start with a capital letter. They should not have a punctuation mark such as a period, a comma or a semi-colon at the end, except if a list item is one or more full sentences, in which case there is a period at the end."

As with all articles on Wikipedia, a journey of a thousand miles starts with one small step. Fixing one section at a time is not a problem, it's just a work in progress (notice that not all entries have terminal punctuation). If you wish, you can assist with the necessary edits! Cheers, Bullmoosebell (talk) 04:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't conjecture that I'm taking this personally (which I am not), or question my understanding of Wikipedia's MoS or policies, since doing so is far from civil and besides you don't even know for how long I have been editing Wikipedia. I don't think lecturing me on WP:BULLETLIST was necessary either, as I was not discussing the removal of dots itself but their removal from only one section. To be quite honest, all you had to tell me was that it is a work in progress, without jumping into assumptions. This [6] is condescending, too. --190.19.99.5 (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read up on Wikipedia's Good Faith Edits before questioning productive edits. It would have saved a lot of hassle if you would have just professed an understanding of such productive edits by displaying your understanding of Wikipedia's Manual of Style in lists and list styles. However, you chose to be disruptive with my edits, which speaks to a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's Manual of Style and Policies & Guidelines. Thus, I educated you on what & why such edits could & would take place. So simmer down, it's just Wikipedia. Problem solved, problem staying solved.

Further information: Wikipedia:Disruptive Editing

It would also be in your best interest to register an account. Making edits through a simple IP address restricts a user's abilities on Wikipedia, whereas a registered AutoConfirmed user is granted more editing permissions. I've taken the liberty of welcoming you to Wikipedia by posting some tips & guidelines on your talk page. If you're as experienced as you claim to be, it's a good idea to register so as to distinguish yourself from vandal/disruptive editors that have had their accounts blocked or banned, such as trolls. Happy trails, and welcome to Wikipedia!

See also: Wikipedia:User access levels