This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Straight off the bat we need someone to create a template box we can stick on the talk page of our articles. Firstly it allows us to "stake claim" and show ourselves off, but more importantly it is needed to appropriately categorise our articles per importance/quality. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
We need a way to categorise our articles per importance. Strictly speaking we're going to have a lot more lists than other projects, mainly because unless they are something where the medal itself is extremely notable (example: the pulitzer, the nobel) it is most likely going to be "article with description of medal and list of recipents"; so, a list. Because of this it will be difficult to say "this is high importance, this is mid importance"; after all, they're all prizes. I recommend it works like so:
High Importance: Awards at an international level, internationally recognised and awarded by a reputable institution. Examples: The Nobel, the Pulizer, the Royal Medal
Mid Importance: Awards at a national level, or awards given by a not-so-reputable (foundation, say, instead of a massive university or committee of elites)/industry association.
Low Importance: Internal awards made at a national or sub-national level. Example: scouting awards.
You can do that? Awesome, I'll get on to working out which articles go where. Give me a poke when you have it done and I'll start uploading. We need an image, I guess; I vote scaled down. Probably the best known award we'll work on. In the absence of more contributors I'll judge this discussion to be (current) consensus on how importance will work, and I'll put it on the main page. Future people with problems with it can discuss it here and we'll reevaluate. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Not quite sure what you mean. If you mean how it is used, an example would be placing {{WikiProject Awards|importance=High|class=B}} on the Nobel Prize talk page. I have now also added a documentation to the template. Rambo's Revenge(talk)18:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure about these, as it will be hard to keep the list to the best few. The Nobel Prize is an obvious choice, as for the others I'm open to suggestions. Rambo's Revenge(talk)22:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Haha, that's ok. We probably need to look further afield (i.e out of sciency articles) for the top uns as well; grammy awards, may I suggest. Also, where do you think the Fields Medal would fall? Highly prestigious, but I'm not sure where it is in the public conscience. If it isn't top-rated you could use it as the high-rated example instead of the oscars. Ironholds (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure which Maths award is considered better Fields or Abel. I would lean towards Abel as it has no "not over 40 years" criteria or anything, and the Field Medal article mentions that Abel may be the more Nobel equivalent prize. I have already changed the High-Importance to Golden Globe, to allow the Oscars to be Top. Grammy Awards added, I haven't get anywhere in my search to find the top award for art, can you think of any other prominent disciplines we have missed. Rambo's Revenge(talk)23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Ehh, lesse. Sports, Science, Film, Music.. Is there some TV equivalent to the oscars? Oh, and the Palme d'Or should probably be included. The Turner Prize is probably the most well-known art award, although not necessarily the highest unless you have a very limited view of the art world. Stanley Cup for ice hockey, maybe? Country-limited, though. And of course we're forgetting those non-notable ones, what are they called.. Olympic medals, those are the ones :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
(←) The Emmy Award is the TV equivalent to the oscars. I think Stanley Cup would be High-Class as it is country & sport specific. Also in my opinion there should only be one Top-Importance field per field, so i'm not sure if Palme d'Or should be added, but I don't feel strongly about this. I don't think the Turner Prize should be "Top-", it is certainly well known, but not sure about it being high up in prestige for the art world. Rambo's Revenge(talk)00:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Pulitzers and Emmy's are US awards, and i would be wary of assuming international importance. Similarly with Tony's, , Grammys, BAFTAS, Brit awards, Booker prize - all only high imo. Every country has awards, few can claim true international importance - i don't think Emmy's get any coverage in Europe for example.
Pulitzers are not more highly regarded than other countries' awards - i know there are french / German / Italian awards that are considered only a small step below the Nobel in literature and go to international authors - if Pulitzers are top, then so are they. Eg Austrian State Prize for European Literature covers a greater population and has bigger prize money, and the Booker prize covers the whole commonwealth, again a larger population than the US, Prince of Asturias Awards, which are world-wide. I think it is only English language bias that makes them seem less notable. Yobmod (talk) 08:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikiproject logo
Proposed this to Ironholds after doing some tagging - after six revisions it has been suggested that I propose it. Here is the version without the text at the bottom, and here is with. I thought that the nobel prize icon that we currently use is slightly misleading, or rather leading, in the sense that we don't only cover science or science-related articles. Thoughts and suggestions for improvement are welcomed. — neuro(talk)22:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I see what you are saying, but personally think a made up image is more confusing. If that is Jimbo, as I believe, it will be associated with Wikipedia and possibly therefore to the WikiProject Wikipedia Awards that only recently moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards. As a new project in its place, I think we want to be clear that this is completely detatched from the aforementioned project. Rambo's Revenge(talk)23:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that using the Nobel Prize, one of the worlds most famous awards is acceptable. However if you feel it is not, a more generic award like this maybe better. It is difficult though ,as anything that isn't a real award may indicate that the project is dealing with fictional awards (i.e. for Wikipedians). What's your view, and anyone else for that matter. Rambo's Revenge(talk)00:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Getting all the Royal Society awards and lectures up to Featured (I've already done two) gives us "Royal Society Medals and Lectures" FT
BBC sports personality of the year can have the same sort of thing done
Overall my point is thus: lots of lists are already Featured, just divided up, and many more are close to that level. Through very little effort we can get a lot of pretty stars. Three FT's is a lot to focus on at once (although one is practically done) so I'll leave it there; any suggestions from others? Ironholds (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
More FLs, ideas
So basically all non-government awards fall under this WikiProject's scope? If that's the case, check the featured lists for WP:FILM, as there's quite a few FLs that would fall under the scope of this project. And yeah, as soon as List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates passes FLC, Scorpion and I will nominate it as part of our Nobel Laureates FT. Given that this project especially caters to topics, might I suggest something similar to the topic workshop I created for WP:ANIME? Probably a good way to orient our work flow. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr(converse)04:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Works for me! I was thinking of more of a sorta focus thing; the entire project turns their attention to one particular topic, we do it, we move on, so on so forth. If this works better it is fine with me! I'll add the film ones once I've finished the additions I'm making now. Ironholds (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the topic workshop idea, as it caters for all users, allowing them to edit any areas of expertise they may have. I think this might be better than the whole project focusing on a specific topic, as some users might not be interested in the topic, and as such be lost from the WikiProject. I don't really know how to go about setting one up though. Hopefully this should page will be moved to the WikiProject space today, and then we can start drafting up ideas in a subpage there. Rambo's Revenge(talk)11:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Also that attitude is a good way to attract new users; "hey, you might not be interested in awards as a whole, but you like maths? Well we're working on the Fields Medal and...". Ironholds (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
JPG to PNG
(originally here)
I just rendered the Nobel prize and removed the holders, since you seem intent on keeping it as the logo. Does this look appropriate to use as project logo? — neuro(talk)10:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am impressed by your Photoshop (or whatever you use) skills. My graphics editing skills are non-existent, so I appreciate your work on this. I think this should replace the image we currently use. If others agree, I will make the changes. Rambo's Revenge(talk)11:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion; if we have "X" and "list of winners of X" I propose we have the latter a step-down on the importance scale. For example; the Nobel Prize is a top-importance article. List of winners of it, however, are not as important as the medal itself, and should be bumped down a notch. Thoughts? Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
How about a separate template: "This article is a fork of X. X has an importance rating of Y, but due to our [[blahblahblah|fork policy]], this has been rated Z." — neuro(talk)13:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "List of ..." should be bumped down one level, and was going to suggest it myself. For now, I think an extra template is not necessary (at least at this early stage) as it will increase maintenance and possibly complicate things overall. Rambo's Revenge(talk)13:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
On ads template
Okay, we are now on the ad rotation. Hope you guys like it:
I notice List of UEFA Super Cup winners was tagged in this project. It got me thinking of whether pages like this should be included. I think there is a subtle but important difference between awards where a winner is selected, or decided for some predetermined criteria, and competitions that have a trophy at the end of them. I'm am open to suggestions, but possibly think we should leave out things that are awarded as a result of a direct competition format to win them. For example, I'm not sure a List of Football League Trophy winners page would be of worthy inclusion to the project., because the Football League Trophy is more of a competition than an award. Thoughts? Rambo's Revenge(talk)14:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. If we're talking sporting, here; how would individual awards work? So "player of the year" awards and so on rather than direct competitions between teams. Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult, I would leann on including those as they are decided on my fans or whoever, and to me are "awards". I realise that there is a lot of them though. Another thing I was going to ask was what is you view on "List of awards won by..." e.g. The Simpsons or Kanye West. Rambo's Revenge(talk)14:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I meant awards 1) awarded by official bodies but 2) based on the performance of an individual rather than a competitive team. An example would be the Jack Adams Award. List of X awards, I feel, is a step too far; it is something simpsons-focused that happens to be about awards. List of simpsons awards= no. List of annie awards for Best Animated Television Program (which includes the simspons)=yes. People are welcome to disagree, of course. Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems we are reading off the same page, I agree exactly with what you said above, but just wanted to check. I would include Jack Adams Award in our scope, the key reason for me deciding that is the page says "adjudged to have contributed". Rambo's Revenge(talk)14:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty, can somebody (preferably Rambo, since he knows the new criteria) remove those articles not under our revised scope from the Featured list and also take the tag off their talk pages? Ironholds (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I agree. I saw we had a featured article within the project scope, and then noticed it was the Stanley Cup....which strikes me as not a prize or award in the sense we seem to be going off but is simply a sporting trophy. Is what is agreed that FA Cup/Stanley Cup/European Cup is not within the project while BBC Sports Personality or such would be? --Narson ~ Talk • 10:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Competitive awards (directly competitive, that is) such as sporting trophies are not within our revised scope. This may be a problem (and I'd like to gauge people's opinion on this) with awards given to individuals but judged based on their performance in competitive games. Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; gymnastics, for example, is judged. It is, however, a directly competitive event, which imo should be the deciding factor. When a mathematician discovers a new lie group he isn't doing it to win a Fields Medal; athletes, on the other hand, have a specific goal of performing well to win medals/gongs/whatnot. Indeed, in athletics your "value" as an athlete is based largely around your trophy cabinet. Ironholds (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
So, military medals would still come under the scope? (As one doesn't run into fire to get a victoria cross and it s awarded by a panel) Sory for twenty questions, just figure it is better to have clarity now than murky water later. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
goes all blaxploitation* nuh-uhh girlfriend! Fraid military and national awards are covered by the Orders, medals and awards (or some variant thereof, not sure the exact name) wikiproject. This'n was set up entirely because for some unknown reason they don't cover anything that isn't a "national" award (VC, Queens Gallantry Medal, so on). Ironholds (talk) 11:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Might be worth telling Neuro this ;) The little advert thing is a series of military medals ;) Oh, I think I ound an article that needs GA reviewing. Turner Prize. It isat least almost there. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Turner prize definitely isn't a GA; it is difficult to consider it a B, to be honest, the referencing is fairly bad. I'm useless at prose but I'll tag in a load of references in a bit when I have time
It definatly makes the B-class criteria, with its inline citations, coverage from 84 to modern day, coverage of all the turners various things (though admitedly not in all detail) and inclusion of other media (Though I would say it could do with /less/ media, unless such media was of the art rather than the artists). I don't think it would pass a GA either, but I thik it would be useful to get a point by point run down there on where to proceed, as it is, currently, a JOAT artile, with all areas ok but not great rather than any single huge failing. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd disagree on your point about good inline citations, which is the big pillar most B-class articles rest on. Background: 3 para's with no inline citations. At least 6 of the yearly blow-by-blow paragraphs have no citations, and the article includes (noting that the normal rule for inlines is 'is it a quote, is it questioned, is it likely to be questioned or is it controversial? if so, inline') such gems as 'One participant was Tracey Emin, known in the art world but largely unknown to the wider public at that time. She appeared completely drunk (she has said this was caused by painkillers she was taking for a broken finger), swearing, insulting the other panel members and saying that she wanted to go home to her mum (she then left). It caused considerable media attention and brought her national fame.' and 'The Chapman Brothers (Jake and Dinos Chapman) were given what was generally felt to be a long-overdue nomination', both uncited and potentially controversial (the last one, for example, is weasley unless linked to artists/news orgs going "its about bloody time!" and whatnot). The referencing needs a large overhaul, tbh. Fix that up and I have no problem. In addition the wider B-class criteria include statements like "No reader should be left wanting" and comments that there shouldn't be anything large missing; we have 6-year long gaps in coverage of the artists in the "history" section. Personally I'd move to have all that condensed anyway; it is too gappy to be set out like that, and if you fill in all the missing years then it will be, well, boring. It'd do much better as a few lumps of prose. Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'll respect your opinion and I've dropped it to C (Guess that C-class finally has a use!). I do think it could probably be brought up to a good standard with some relative ease, and it is a pretty well known prize, so we might want to make note of it for futue work. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Finally, my opinion is worth something somewhere :P. It does (as you said) seem to be easy to upgrade a few bits; I'll start a discussion about the history section on the talk page there for you and others to chip in on Ironholds (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the hockey ones. Eurovision is difficult; on the one hand, it is "judged", not based on a scoring system, on the other hand it can be said that entries go in to "win" and it is therefore a competition. A third and completely British viewpoint would be that it isn't a competition because nobody with two brain cells to bang together gives a toss about the Eurovision and many of the entries patently aren't in it to win (unless there is a 'talentless bozo' category I'm not aware of). Ironholds (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Eurovision isn't an award. It is a competition, at least that is my view. I'm with wogan that it is an exercise in futility more than a competition ;) --Narson ~ Talk • 12:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd say any televoting system is a bit dubious as it doesnt make clear the criteria or those judging, without that it becomes very difficult to accept it as a real award. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, a good point, hrm. I would consider those to be quite imporant. Sports Personality of the Year is chosen the same way (With televoting). That something is a competition shouldn't make it inelligible, just if it is a sporting trophy that is granted automatically for participation or something like eurovision where itis just a TV show or such. I mean, we don't want to include X-factor, do we? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh god no. How about this; we work it on intent. If the participants sign themselves up of their own volition directly for the running it can be taken as a general rule that the contest is ineligible; it is a hallmark of most awards that candidates are put forward by their peers. I advise whatever we decide should be a general rule rather than a specific by-the-book one; as contract law is teaching me there are exceptions to everything. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly :). I'm afraid this doesn't mean we get made barons, unfortunately. Maybe we could have that as the title of coordinators if this project gets big, though :P. Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Well why I am a member of Lincoln's Inn (you only have to show evidence you're studying towards being a barrister, not that you are yet qualified) I'm only a student and couldn't really justify it. Also I'm a cheap bastard and don't own one :P.
I could make some off colour jokes, but shan't. We are likely confusing others enough as is. How did we end up this off topic? - Oh, back on topic for a moment,
the chart on the main page of the project and the priorities don't line up. We have 'High' listed as a valid priority, and not none.....yet...the chart has none but not High. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I am going away (no internet) for a week, so won't be participating in any discussions for a bit. Also the WikiProject banner looks like it is broken, but it is a Meta problem and has been reported. Keep up the good work with the project all. Rambo's Revenge(talk)19:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
As your 'second' I'll keeping things in order *wink, wink*. When you come back we should have a Featured Topic up and another half done. Ironholds (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Awards judged by a panel rather than competitively? Go for it. If we argue that "joke" awards shouldn't be present then we rule out the Turner imo :P. Ironholds (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! :). I think tagging is the first thing to be done, then we should work on the current projects or whatnot. Useless having a 'scope' is articles within that scope are not tagged. Ironholds (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Can't we add a scroll bar? I think we should all of our featured content, though I agree that it takes a lot of room.—Chris!ct02:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, that section's purpose is to list as many possible topics as you see fit, no matter how difficult you think it is. The more options you present to people in terms of what they can work on, the more work that will get done. So fire away ;-) — sephiroth bcr(converse)20:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Sweet. Medals of the Royal Society are goooo! Alright, so it doesn't have the ring of 'thunderbirds' but then we don't have to go out rescuing people stupid enough to get trapped under burning buildings/bombs/oceans. Ironholds (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
My on-wiki time will be limited and mainly dedicated to discussions and some judicial work (work on judicial pages, that is) for a few days. I have exams coming up and by working on law articles I can pretend I am revising :P. I'll be back soon, though; I have two FTs to work on. Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
No you are quite right the scope doesn't include Vanier Cup, and I have removed and untagged it. Originally there was a very rough scope and in the start up lots of things go tagged. We had a little discussion above, and agreed that cups, prizes directly competed for should not be included. I have not had time to look through all the content taggings and as such there probably remain some inconsistencis, for which I apologise. If you find any in your course of work please feel free to untag them. Lastly welcome, it is great to have you on board. Rambo's Revenge(talk)18:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Hall of Fames?
Glad to be aboard, I figured that since I have worked on so many awards-related pages that I might as well join. Just another question, what about Hall/walks of fame? -- Scorpion042218:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I must admit this is (suprisingly) not something I had considered before. I think they should be within the scope as they are often "awarded" as recognition for something. There is occasionally even cross-over in the name e.g. Grammy Hall of Fame Award. But I am by no means am a definitive member in deciding what is included here. It would be good to know other members opinion on this, in fact what is yours? Rambo's Revenge(talk)19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree it is not clear cut. Some make me think they should (e.g. Sault Ste. Marie Walk of Fame for significant contributions in their chosen field of work), whereas others do not (e.g. World Golf Hall of Fame where people go in when they meet a certain number of tour points). It would be nice to judge everything case by case, however this isn't really feasible. At the moment I think I lean towards inclusion having looked at List of halls and walks of fame, but I could probably be persuaded/pushed either way. Rambo's Revenge(talk)20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
We could judge it the same way as we do standard sporting awards, i.e on what grounds they are awarded. Those with specific entry criteria (you must be X high to ride this hall of fame!) are thrown out; those 'judged' (rock hall of fame, country music hall of fame, so on) are included. Ironholds (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are quite right. I found some more here in the "Wikipedia talk" space and there are no doubt more in other space as well. I will endeavour to fix these when I have some more time. Rambo's Revenge(talk)13:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Fixed "Wikipedia" and "Wikipedia talk" namespaces. "User" space is fine, and I don't thing going changing "User talk" archives is necessary as they are just that, archives of what used to be. Rambo's Revenge(talk)16:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'*'m guessing this project is quite new, but i was wondering if you/we could maybe have a discussion about when an article is better assessed at FLC or GAN, maybe resulting in a few (non-binding but helpful) project guidelines.
Eg: Gaylactic spectrum awards nominees for each catergory made featured lists, and i am confilicted as to whether the parent article should go to FLC or GAN. There is little to say about this extremely niche award apart from listing the winners, and at the moment the list at the article is longer than the prose, but as it is the main article, it should also make the case for notability, which is not really needed in the lead for a FL (notability is usually assumed to be shown in the parent).
So, what do people think (in general and for this example). Would a fail at GAN for being to listy be acceptable for an argument at acceptance at FLC? or the other way around (failing FL for having too much prose cf. to list?). Currently some main article for awards are structured as articles, and others as lists, usually the former for awards with many sources (so they actually have more to write).
Suggestions:
If the list is much longer than the prose, but the prose is substantial, it should be split off anyway, the would have 2 articles, one for GAN one FLC.
If the List is as long as or little longer than the prose, but prose will not be expanded as all sources exhausted, it can go to either.
If list is longer than prose, but this is because prose requires significant expansion, list can be renamed and go to FLC, and a second article discussing the award in general created (with no list, but a link to it).
If the list is shorter than the prose, it should go to GAN (even if it passes the 10 item FL requirment).
I agree with your points, but with the stated assumption that it isn't just a size ratio they need to qualify; they do need to be a certain quality (obviously). In regards to your example: Have you considered turning it into a Featured Topic? If the lists are all FL-quality and the parent article is FL-quality then it qualifies; you just need to add a template to the bottom and submit. Ironholds (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Trying to make a WikiProject guideline here on what is and is not a list is a bad idea. The only time you get a clear answer is when you go to GAN or FLC, as there has been no wiki-wide consensus on what divides the gray area between articles and lists. Trying to set an arbitrary rule on a WikiProject scale (especially with a WikiProject of such wide scope) is asking for unnecessary conflict. How much prose there is in the article is a poor parameter of what is an article and a list, as we have lists that are pure prose. As for your example though, awards typically go two routes from my experience. You have the main article and a separate list of winners/nominees or you have simply the awards article that acts as a list. In the former, the awards article goes to GAN and the winners/nominees list goes to FLC. In the latter, the awards article goes to FLC. — sephiroth bcr(converse)10:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Jepp, it's just that last main list/article that needs to pass for FT.
i've never had a GA or FL fail, so wanted to make sure i was submitting to right process first. Failing because a GA reviwer thinks it is too listy would be just time-wasting for all involved, if we can form a guideline to point reveiwers of either process too, it might prevent wrong submissions and fails. (I've seen a numer of FLC candidated that had come directly from the failed GAN for just this reason) I'll submit to FLC now, and hopefully it wont result in 2 weeks then fail only due to there being too much text. Listing all the nominees on one article would have been too long imo, hence this situation of a main article acting as a list and sub-lists.Yobmod (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the first comment after submitting was "shouldn't this go to GA first?", but i think that is sorted for this example.
Anyway, Gaylactic Spectrum Award is now up for FL, so please add any comments / supports / opposes. The previous lists struggled to get enough reviews of any sort, so hopefully a new project will remedy this.Yobmod (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I had started to clean the main page up for this category of awards and began to realize it was more of a major work project than I had either the time or resources to fix. The main page is horribly formatted and the lists need to be inverted. There are two complete years included in tables at the bottom that seem to be mangled. I just wanted to alert the project about this as it is beyond my resources to check and repair. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOT#PLOT: There is an RfC discussing if our policy on plot, WP:PLOT, should be removed from what Wikipedia is not. Please feel free to comment on the discussion and straw poll.
Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. HidingT13:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.
We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.
If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I recently created this list based of the man booker list. However i then came across a format on the Gaylactic Spectrum Award list which is featured. I prefer the man booker style as it shows the different years better but it isnt sortable whereas the other format is.
In short if i was to get this to FL quality would i be required to make this list sortable or could i go with the man booker style and still get it passed? Salavat (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Disregarding all the above info as ive decided on a table format. Would someone be able to do quick copyedit on the lead, it would be greatly appreciated. Salavat (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys. The Nobel Prize is a top importance article here on this project and lately I have bee trying to make it into a GA. I have, however, come to a point where I need some help with opinions and somebody to look at the article with a new set of eyes, perhaps doing some copy editing etc. I could really need a hand if possible. If not with editing I would appriciate if somebody at least gave some opinions on the talk page :)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for this Project's help with the Covenant Awards. I am a member of the Canada Project music. This article is currently unassessed for quality and importance for both our projects. I think that the list sections dealing with the Award recipients by year should be spun off to separate articles. Other than that, I really can't comment on the article. Please help, somebody. Argolin (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Despite this failing at FLC with an early close (for the fact that it can be easily merged to the main Justin Bieber article), and a strong consensus there that this article shouldn't even exist as a list on its own, some editors are still adamant that this singer's nine awards should be split from a 35KB article, which makes zero sense to me. All of his awards and nominations could easily be covered in simply two paragraphs, as I demonstrated here. I was wondering if I could get an uninvolved editor from this WikiProject, who would likely be more experienced in this area than myself and the other contributors to the discussion, to leave a comment at this discussion? That would be great. –Chase (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Question about awards and nominations received by musical artists, etc.
Hello, I have a question regarding awards received by musical artists, notable figures, etc. Is it required to have an awards table when showing the awards that someone was nominated for or won? The reason I am asking this is because of the merge proposal presented here. If an awards table is required, then the list could be kept as a stand-alone list, and not a prose, like the one presented here because it would be too big to have all of the awards tables for the article, Justin Bieber. I also have asked this question, because I have never seen awards listed in a prose on a Wikipedia article. Rp0211 (talk2me)01:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
No it is definately not required. Here are two exmaples of sections from a featured articles that document awards in prose without using a table:
I found it by searching down this page, but it seems to me that it should be placed on the main page with its own ToC entry, so that people can find it more easily--perhaps next to the Assessment section? Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Awards articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Awards articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
Hello all. I have made some new articles about some new/quite unknown Orders and Medals (and a single hall of fame). It would be nice for me, if some of you would take a look at them and give some comments on what you think Skibden (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been trying to improve the page List of people who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards, and could appreciate any help that would improve the page. I'm really not sure if this is the best place to post this, but someone recommended I try so I thought it was worth a shot. Any help in cleaning the article would be much appreciated. Thanks so much.Yaksar(let's chat)23:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if project members would have any interest in a Grammy Awards task force (to be housed under the WikiProject Awards and prizes umbrella). I would love to get some editors together to keep the Grammy lists and articles up-to-date. Please let me know if you would be interested. Similarly, feel free to express opposition if you are concerned about the task force being incorporated into the project. Thanks! --Another Believer(Talk)15:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and started the task force after a couple of other active editors expressed interest in participation. I strongly encourage WP Awards members to join if interested, or to at least stop by and help with setting up the task force. I need to figure out how to adjust the WP Awards template so that the task force can have its own assessment chart. --Another Believer(Talk)23:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
For anyone wondering what I did with colors look at the bottom of Chorus Line. I have changed the Pulitzer Prize, Drama Desk and Olivier Awards colors so that they are all different shades from the Tony Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
There is now Olympic medal, advanced from 8-year-old {stub} to far beyond that (marked C), essentially by one editor 10-12 September 2011. --P64 (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Propose deletion It's a "retired" award, although no sources can be found to state that. The ASA, who gave the award, went quiet in 2008, only to become active again in 2012. I have yet to see if they will continue giving the award. The downside: only one recipient links to the article, besides the link to Angell's article, so it may be deleteable as "unused" or "obsolete". — WylieCoyote (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
This stub came to my notice while stub-sorting because a newby editor had put it into Category:Stubs, although it's got a long-standing {{award-stub}} template.
I removed a chunk of unsourced, poorly linked, text about one narrow kind of award ceremony, which has been in place pretty much untouched since the stub was created in 2008.
I'm not sure whether this article ought even to exist, as there may be nothing more useful than a dicdef to say about award ceremonies as a whole, but there are a lot of incoming links.
Someone might like to improve it, so it actually says something useful about award ceremonies in general (Nobel Prize ceremony?). PamD10:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, Prize community! I'd like to initiate a consensus debate (is that the right way to do it?) on the article of Templeton Prize. Would it be a good idea to add each laureate's religion? There are sources for religions at each laureate's article.
There is a discussion at Talk:2012 Grammy Awards#Requested move to use the number instead of the year for the Grammy awards. I noticed that the word "or" was used in the lead sentence: "The 2005 (or 47th) Grammy Awards were held". As a matter of grammar I would recommend removing the word "or" - "The 2005 (47th) Grammy Awards were held", from every article. Apteva (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1940-1949 has been nominated for merging with Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 1940-1960. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
