Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards, a WikiProject covering awards within Wikipedia.
Shortcut:
WikiProject Awards and prizes (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Awards and prizes, 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 

Archived some threads[edit]

I've archived some threads which were inactive and essentially links to discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the broad archive banner (a slim version remains, far above) with the more visible archive box that displays beside the Contents table. And I annotated the box. --P64 (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay sounds good, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Need help on Ian Charleson Awards[edit]

These are very highly regarded, very prestigious theatre awards in the UK; however there is little publicity and no glitz (serious actors/theatre-goers actually prefer it that way and feel it adds to their greater legitimacy). Because of the low publicity, there is less information easily available about the awards as a whole (e.g., no official website). Also, the Sunday Times, which sponsors the awards, is behind a paywall. For all of these reasons, the Wikipedia article on the Ian Charleson Awards is greatly lacking -- much information is missing, and most of what is there is uncited. If anyone would like to help out with expanding the article, please help! Even just the basic information for many years is incomplete or missing. Any additions to the article would be greatly appreciated. It would also help if you have a subscription to The Times (I don't, currently), but it's not necessary because the award information is out there on the web in other more scattered places. I also just spent many hours cleaning up the format of the article, which was a mess. I'm not 100% convinced that the format I came up with is the best one, so other opinions on that are welcome, too. Thank you very much! Softlavender (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Belated followup: I managed to get a one-month subscription to The Times, and a three-day subscription to The Times' digital archive, and printed out all of the twice-yearly Sunday Times articles on these awards, and updated and corrected and expanded the Wikipedia article accordingly. No further help needed. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Several AFC drafts of awards-related topics[edit]

CathleenVought (talk · contribs) has submitted several draft articles through the Articles for creation process.

I suspect at least one of the photography-award-related topics is notable enough to warrant an article.

If any of these are notable, please add an {{afc comment}} near the top (below the other "afc" templates) saying as much and notify me or the last reviewer. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/international design awards[edit]

Is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/international design awards a notable topic? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

  • No way of knowing since the creator has not provided any references. References are the basic starting point of any article. Softlavender (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    • "No way of knowing," unless a reader of this talk page is familiar enough with the award to say "Oh, that's a well-known award" or "oh, that's a 2-bit vanity award." I'm hoping that since people who read this are interested in awards, someone might be able to fill in the blanks left by the absence of suitable references. If the topic is "known to be non-notable" then it can be declined with much stronger language than if it's just "not known to be notable." If it's "known to be notable" then it can be commented with "known-notable topic, declining due to lack of references, please work in it" or, if the reviewer has time and access to suitable sources, accepted and properly referenced. I guess what I'm trying to do is get the article in the encyclopedia if it's a notable topic or permanently discourage the submitter from trying again if it's a "known non-notable" topic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
      • A quick Google search reveals them to be this. The content is alarmingly similar in parts to the "about" section. Checking Google News, I see no reference to these awards. There are other "International Design Awards" with press e.g. SBID International Design Awards. However, the IDA does have a website press section - see "IDA In The News". There are a few links; none scream notability. However, there is one major link to what is presumably a mention in the Financial Times; unfortunately I don't have subscription access to confirm/deny this and assert notability from it. I would question the notability unless this source has a fairly strong assertion. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Grammy Award templates[edit]

Suddenly many less important Grammy award templates have been created. Looking at Category:Grammy Award templates I see Template:Grammy Award for Best Pop Solo Performance, Template:Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media, Template:Grammy Award for Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album, Template:Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording, Template:Grammy Award for Best Dance/Electronica Album, Template:Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, Template:Grammy Award for Best Music Video, Template:PolkaGrammy, and Template:Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album have all been created unnecessarily. These are almost all basically subcategory awards of the big four. Should we delete all of these lesser Grammy award templates?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that only the "big four" should have navboxes. Others are simply coatracks of undue weight. Adabow (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, only the major four navboxes are useful. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
A bundled nomination at TfD might be in order. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Adabow, WikiRedactor, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Come comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_13#July_13.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Strongly oppose this action, and the note above smacks of WP:Canvassing. An editor deciding they don't like a handful of Grammy categories, declaring them "less important" somehow, and having an unadvertised discussion with a couple of other folks on a US holiday weekend is hardly a broad consensus to delete useful navigation templates without other cause. - Dravecky (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

When are awards considered defunct?[edit]

For example PEN/Nabokov Award. Many times awards will stop operating with no notice. The only evidence is lack of evidence. At what point in time do we say the award has been non-existent for X years and therefore should be referred to in the past-tense and given a Defunct category entry? Interesting question perhaps no hard rule but raises the question about how to verify something (the award is defunct) by way of lack of sources. -- GreenC 02:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question. If you can't find evidence in the normal sources, I would try contacting the sponsoring organization directly. Sometimes there'll be an announcement of a formal withdrawal from sponsorship or closure of a prize, but these are not always well advertized. It's also fairly common for a prize to skip a year or two due to funding issues or a failure to find a satisfactory winner, so you wouldn't want to declare something defunct prematurely. If direct contact fails and it's been at least 5 years since the prize was last awarded, I'd be comfortable with an article saying something like: "The prize was last awarded in (year). The prize is now presumed to be defunct." Obviously 5 years is an arbitraty number and may not always be appropriate for prizes that are known to be sporadic or infrequent (for example, Granta has recognized the Best Young British Authors on an ongoing 10 year cycle since 1983), but if a prize that was meant to be awarded annually goes on a 5 year hiatus, it's hard to say it's still active. Even if it does come back, you could probably still say that the prize was effectively defunct for the 5 year period before it was brought back. Vojen (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)