Talk:List of prizes known as the Nobel or the highest honors of a field

Right livelihood award

Is known as the alternative nobel. Not the nobel of a field. Which is what this article is about. So it does not belong in this article.

Criteria for inclusion

According to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field, I'd like to propose some inclusion criteria, for discussion. Generally, an entry on this list should, IMO:

• be backed by several independent, reliable sources
• be mentioned by the sources as "commonly referred to as Nobel of X" (or some variation thereof), rather than simply being asserted as such by them, for example "Prize Z is the Nobel of X"

If you agree with these, we can start enforcing them to guarantee the quality of this list. Let me know what you think :) --Waldir ^talk 06:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the first dot point, but not the second. We are looking for sources that describe it as "the Nobel of X". That is all, and if we have several, that is even better. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right. If there are several sources affirming the same thing, it is assumed that these prizes are indeed commonly known as "the Nobel of X" (as opposed to the case where a single source says that) --Waldir ^talk 08:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke and Waldirs decision.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• A further caveat I would suggest is that the multiple sources should not just be republishing the same news story that makes mention of a certain "Nobel prize of" whatever. I.e. the origins of the label also need to be independent. In addition the prize must be serious and significant in nature, and not a satirical label or award.[1]—RJH (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I agree with that, too. --Waldir ^talk 20:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, but on some conditions. First of all; List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field cannot be called that, as its Tone may be unsuitable for Wikipedia. After that is fixed, you will have my full support.--RM (Be my friend) 15:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I named the article following the format of List of persons considered father or mother of a field; What name would you suggest instead? --Waldir ^talk 20:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "List of awards equated to the Nobel prize"?—RJH (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not bad, but I can't say I'm thoroughly convinced that it's better than the current title... --Waldir ^talk 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I have no issue with the current title.—RJH (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• One thing needs to be pointed out. If a prize awarder would call their prize "the Nobel Prize of thisorthat", they would have a lawsuit on their hands. So the sources for the label would hardly ever be primary. Too bad I didn't see the AfD in time. Tomas e (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I support this. A single source calling it a Nobel Prize offhand should not suffice, but multiple independent sources (or a source that shows that the consideration is common) should establish is as common. Cool Hand Luke 16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Seems like a good idea to me. The main point would be the necessity of multiple sources, of course, so there just needs to be a way to make that clear in the lede as well. —fetch·comms 17:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)