Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Star Trek/archive1

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 archived by Crisco 1492 11:04, 6 December 2014 [1].

List of accolades received by Star Trek (film)

Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Star Trek/archive1

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've put forward a FL nom, and certainly this one is unlike any I've ever done - because the sourcing was an absolute pig!! But after digging through archive.org I've managed to put together a fully sourced list. This was originally based off the IMDB list of the awards, but in pulling this together I fixed the mistakes in that table (you'll notice that IMDB gives the film more victories - but I've gone through and checked each individual one to make sure they're all accounted for). Once this gets through then I'll take a long hard look at Star Trek Into Darkness although I'll need a drink first! :) Miyagawa (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

====Comments by Cowlibob====

Lead

Needs citations for plot, production/acting/directing credits.

Added. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary currently is probably too detailed and copied pretty much word for word from the movie article.

I've trimmed some lines away. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Box office section is also probably too detailed. Just include its premiere, wide release date, opening weekend/record it broke, final gross, production budget. Box office should also be rounded to 3 significant figures as consensus has changed so something like over $385 million.

Trimmed and abbreviated the takings. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've got to be passive in language so can't comment on whether it was a commercial success or not or a critical success but you can say something like Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator surveyed x reviews and judged 95% to be positive as you're just reporting it.

I've removed that sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

add alt text to image

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure that infobox matches with main table and also follows the same order

Double checked and now done - with those new awards added too. Miyagawa (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table

"Awards and nominations" should be "accolades"

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add sortability to the table as it's useful and also scope rows and scope cols for accessibility.

Done both - haven't added sort tags to the recipients column yet. Had to remove the background colour from the headers because it was hiding the sorting buttons, but that's no biggie. Miyagawa (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added sort tags to the recipients column now. Miyagawa (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks cleaner if you have a separate ref column

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The table doesn't seem to be any order: you can choose to make it alphabetical or by date of ceremony.

Now double checked and sorted by alphabetical by name of award. Miyagawa (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fill in the empty spaces with the film title itself

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure every nominee is linked after you've added sortability but only red link those who've won/nominated important awards

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also add sort by name so that nominees are sorted by last name e.g. Chris Pine, (see my edit for the code) only needed for first nominee for each award

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually these tables only include awards which have their own wiki page.

There's just the one unlinked one left, and that's cited to an independent source so I think it's worthwhile keeping. Miyagawa (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add casting society of america nom, denver awards, Hollywood Post Alliance, Online film and television association.

Added. Miyagawa (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink Washington individual award noms also check this throughout the table as a whole load of wikis have been made for each individual award category for each awarding body.

Added. Yet to double check other awards. Miyagawa (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Only italicise sources which are newspapers or magazine sources.
Oscars.org --> Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you link PDFs you should note which page the info is on

Added. Miyagawa (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably no need to External link to the official website

Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more to follow... Cowlibob (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink "Star Trek" mentions in the nominee section of table to the film article
IFMCA award nom should probably be Michael Giacchino for "Enterprising Young Men" so that it's sorted under Giacchino
Zachery Quinto --> Zachary Quinto
Star Trek does not need to be sorted to the end as you've done. You can allow it to be sorted under S
Center refs in ref column
Title of table section should just be "accolades"
For the Boston Cast award and other cast awards unless it's individual members of the cast are mentioned like SAGs you don't need to add them as nominees simply the film name is ok.
Why is there a X after Artios Awards and the date for those awards?

Sorry for the late reply here. Cowlibob (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I've sorted out those points. Miyagawa (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add rowspan=2 for visual effects ref
I would remove the gray lines as they seem to affect how the table displays atleast in Firefox where ref column is split up with further grey lines most notably in ref 43 where the extra line cuts across it.
For the third paragraph start it with Star Trek garnered many awards and nominations with particular praise for x aspect of film, x2 aspect and x3 aspect. So that you highlight which aspects of the film gained the most recognition.

Cowlibob (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've made those changes. Miyagawa (talk) 07:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good now. I can now Support this list. Cowlibob (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd disambiguate with (film), as we could theoretically make a list for TOS and/or the franchise as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Miyagawa (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose..... at least for now:

I can't find anything in FN5 (Box Office Mojo) which supports the "which placed it as the seventh highest-grossing film for 2009 behind The Hangover" bit

I've added the relevant source. Sorry about that, completely overlooked the correct cite. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Within the tables, there are instances of WP:OVERLINK for award recipients

WP:OVERLINK allows for links to be repeated in tables. Also, because it is a sortable table, any one of them potentially could be the first link to appear in the table. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher for The Boston Globe from 2006 to October 2009 was P. Steven Ainsley, so I'd reflect this accordingly

Thanks, rectified. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Mojo shouldn't be italicized as it is an online-only source

Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FN6's publisher should be the same as FN5, which is Amazon.com

Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CBS News shouldn't be italicized as it is not a print source, and publisher is CBS Corporation

Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Publisher for MTV is Viacom

Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indiewire is owned by SnagFilms

Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Daily News" should read "New York Daily News"

Corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident that better sources can be found than "Zap2It" or "Daily Express".

I'd argue that both are reliable sources. In particular, the Daily Express is a national British newspaper. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily saying they're unreliable, just that higher quality ones can be used. For example, The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian are among the most reliable UK papers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Express cite is purely used for the date of the ceremony. I'll look for a better quality source for the critic's choice awards and then post back here to confirm. Miyagawa (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure about "Moviefone"

It's a website owned by AOL and directly linked to from their websites. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is how AOL-affiliated sites tend not to be very reliable Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only other source I can find is a TrekMovie.com article as the SFX website doesn't have the results listed anymore, and archive.org unfortunately didn't capture it while it did. I'm happy to use TrekMovie.com as it's one of only the four fan related websites which are linked to from the official Star Trek website, which I've always taken a sign of reliability. However, it's probably the one I've used the least as the others actually used to have articles directly linked to from the official website in a prior design. But I'm happy to either switch or add as a secondary cite if you think it'd improve the situation. Miyagawa (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's my input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, looks better now. Almost ready to support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.