Talk:Costa Book Awards

History of award categories

This article should cover the history of the award categories. Here is a bare beginning: the inaugural dates for the current awards, five categories plus one overall.

• Biography, 1971
• Children's, 1976 (restored)
• First Novel, 1981
• Novel, 1971
• Poetry, 1985 (restored)
• OVERALL, 1985 (restored)

Thus the current set of awards dates from 1985. This table is errorprone because I have relied entirely on our yearly articles and have initially checked only the years ending '5' and '0'. Feel free to correct it with strikeout and signature below. --P64 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yearly subsections

By the way, on my recent visit I tried in draft to limit the Contents table to one level using {{TOC limit}}. Only the major sections would be listed, rather than a long column of yearly subsections. Either I goofed or it doesn't work for one level (no fewer than two).

I started to replace all of those subsection headings by ordinary bold headings

2000

but reconsidered. [a] That's overkill simply for the TOC purpose, where I maybe goofed anyway. [b] These sections may be used in other articles as links, the way Whitbread articles 1971 to 1999 are used.

We have some articles with many more yearly subsections or subsubsections. I am interested to know the technical solution, if any, regardless of whether it is valuable here. --P64 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

{{TOC right}} may be useful. We use it for one very long TOC that I know (Bermuda Bowl). It was nominated for deletion seven years ago with discussion (read it) that deprecates routine use, as does the documentation (read it). What is the bottom line? After reading, I don't know. --P64 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 recognition of graphic novels

• "Costa book awards: the comic contenders", Rachel Cooke, The Guardian 20 November 2012

"More on this story" now links 3 other articles. --P64 (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

New references to Costa Book Awards

first of multiple sections posted at once

Evidently the official internet addresses have been revised. I have provided two new refs to the Past Winners and Past Shortlists pdf documents and used them as [ref name=costa-winners] and [ref name=costa-shortlists] --with little attention to how they should be used, little attention to format, no check whether the documents have been revised. I will not update any other Costa pages. --P64 (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We give {{dead}} reference links in many biographies and book articles.

Costa/Whitbread archives --P64 (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

New short story award

second of two new sections posted at once

Meanwhile I have added as a reference [ref name=flood2], from The Guardian two weeks ago, the second article by Alison Flood on the new short story award. Previous editors had inserted "Short Story" in section Process but had not revised the text that actually covered only the five book awards. I have rearranged and rewritten the section hastily but sufficiently to be clear about the different processes, and to use both Flood references clearly --i believe. This ruins the layout and I guess someone of youall will redo it.

I didn't even glance at the official site to find coverage of the books process. I simply tagged {{citation needed}} somewhere not covered by the Flood refs. --and I inserted some hidden comments that may be helpful. --P64 (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

These CBA press releases pertain to the Costa Short Story Award. Linknames are release dates.

2012 award – 20121127 20130124 20130129 20130130

2013 award – 20131126 (first page, last par) 20140121 20140128

--P64 (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead paragraph (entire section needs work) and section 1, primarily seeking clarity regarding the long-established five Book Awards and one new Short Story Award. --without using the sources linked just above

I inserted the English language requirement by presumption. I inserted WP:COMMENT wondering whether the short story award is open to all submissions that fit the word limit, not only (part)residents of the British Isles like the book awards. I wonder because unpublished short stories are submitted online, evidently, and are anonymous until the end.

I think the list of winners should distinguish the short story award, probably by layout as at DE.wiki or NO.wiki (where I completed the updates in distinctive layout).

--P64 (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2003 Whitbread Awards

Should be merged and redirected to successor award title - MrX 13:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Every year of the Whitbreads should be merged with the Costa prize listings. Ghostfrog (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the annual pages should be replaced by redirects here.

Annual data should be checked. I fixed four mistakes this week working not systematically on writer biographies. (Mistakes in linking the authors and titles.)

I doubt that this main article should include annual data --complete lists of winners with or without shortlists. Instead, the annual listings should be dispersed to a list by award category.

How important is this award? and how was it, as the Whitbread Prize? The current Costa list of past winners does include some notes on changes concerning categories, such as the selection process for the Children's Book Award. Perhaps each category should be covered in a separate list article.

For example see Category:National Book Award (U.S. nationality), where we have main article, unified list, and four list articles for the main categories (the only categories for more than 20 years).

The Smarties Prize categories are rather similar compared with these. Even so, it's painful that one cannot scan or ignore all the "ages 0–5" data at once.

Since there is an overall award here, maybe give historical data for the Overall here, and repeat that information in comprehensive list article. --P64 (talk) 22:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. Annuals are commonly done for the larger book awards, see Pulitzer Prize; and each year generates plenty of coverage so sourcing for notability is not an issue. The National Book Award should be annualized also, at least starting at a certain date since things get very complex with that award going back in time. The annuals provide room to list finalists, judges and other information that is difficult when crammed into a single (or 4 or 5) lists, the National Book Awards is a good example of how messy it can get when we try to do everything in a single list, and how limiting it can be. -- GreenC 15:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, if the concern is there no unified list to quickly scan the winners (like in a database listing) that can be added also, for example there is a list of winners at Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, plus the annualized articles. Not suggesting this for every book prize, but there are a few major awards with multiple categories and other information. Also, Wikidata is just getting started but eventually a list of winners will be generated automatically so creating a database-like listing manually will become redundant busy-work, things can be split and combined anyway the end user wants real-time automatically, and thus the other information about the award becomes more important, such as sourcing and judges and critical commentary, controversy, prize amounts (change each year), sponsors, etc.. -- GreenC 16:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Award dates

At least under the Costa name from 2006, we say something like this in the lead (quoting 2006 Costa Book Awards):

"This page gives details of the awards given in the year 2006.

The Costa Book of the Year shortlist was announced on 10 January 2007 and the final results at a ceremony held on 7 February 2007.

At 2005 Whitbread Awards we say only "This page gives details of the awards given in the year 2005."

The main article says nothing about past or present "dating", nor about past timing. It gives two dates in the 2012/2013 cycle.

--P64 (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes a common problem. I believe the best solution is to be more explicit with information. Something like "The 2006 awards were given for books published between January 2006 and December 2006. The shortlist was announced 10 January 2007¹ and the winner announced 7 February 2007.²" That way it is known when the awards were announced, and for what year the books were published. The published information is not always known, so can also say "For award-year 2006, the shortlist was announced 10 January 2007.. etc". -- GreenC 03:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Visual: The "dagger" i.e. cross, standardly used to mark death

What is the purpose of using both bold and † sign with the sole purpose of marking the overall winner?

The cross (†) referred here for some bizarre reason as "dagger" is traditionally used to mark the dead person on the list of living ones. 59.41.252.227 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well you shouldn't use bold alone (see WP:MOSBOLD and WP:ACCESS) but you're right that the dagger is typically either for the dead or wicketkeepers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

We use the dagger and double dagger-- &dagger ; and &Dagger ; --among other special symbols to distinguish some items from others for many purposes. These items aren't people identified by name, so I doubt much confusion and that only for the hastiest visitors. Perhaps the method of distinguishing, in detail (location at the head of the listing or at the tail unspaced rather than at the tail spaced) or otherwise, must be changed for a high class rating but that is premature.

On the other hand, change is also exceptionally cheap in this case. For what it's worth:

1. other-language coverage of Costa Book Awards

• German Wikipedia (DE) appends "– Buch des Jahres" to the listing of that category winner which is Book of the Year, de:Costa Book Award#1990 bis 1999. The main purpose of using any symbol, as we do, is to avoid what extra clutter or word wrap that generates.
• Ten more other-language Wikipedias have some Costa Book Awards page. Six identify no award winners; EL and PO list only the BotY, no category winners; NO doesn't identify the BotY among the category winners; JP uses boldface alone [which we do not permit] to distinguish the BotY from other category winners.

2. English coverage of other book awards

• We use both double listing and the word 'Overall' to distinguish the Smarties Prize overall winner from the other category winners, Nestlé Smarties Book Prize#1985–1995 with Overall winners. (Here DE doesn't identify the overall winners, scroll de:Nestlé Smarties Book Prize to 1995.)

--P64 (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

--P64 (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Always a better idea to use a more "standard" symbol like an asterisk. This way there's no death connotations. By the way, daggers and double daggers cannot be read easily by screen readers. If you insist on their use, please use the accessible template variants, I.e., {{dagger}} and {{double dagger}} so all readers can enjoy the experience. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Update, thanks to another editor. "Bold font and blue ribbon () distinguish the overall Costa Book of the Year." That's quotation; I would link and display boldface. The ribbon is implemented by template {{blue ribbon}}. --P64 (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The matter seems to be resolved to everybody's satisfaction so let me just add that the confusion re: the dagger symbol is so ingrained you just have to accept that the symbol is called that. Yes, it's technically wrong, but language is defined by those who use it, and dagger simply is a very commonly used name for this symbol, like it or not. Using it for things other than death is perfectly fine, though I have zero problems with the very nice ribbon y'all have settled on instead. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Costa Book Awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060924201700/http://www.thebookstandard.com:80/bookstandard/news/author/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002612415 to http://www.thebookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/author/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002612415

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge the individual year articles?

I came across this page from the individual page, specifically 1994 Whitbread Awards. First thing I noticed was that the individual years pages add no content that is not available on this master page. They're still just a list of books that won and the links. No additional content. I'd suggest that the individual year articles be deleted as unneeded noise and maintenance. Canterbury Tail talk 12:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I would just work on expanding the year articles instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I still think they should be merged, too! Balle010 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man I agree with @Canterbury Tail and @Balle010. I struggle to see what expansion there could be to those list articles? More details of the books could be given, but this would be better suited to an individual article on each work, which are likely to have independent coverage in the form of reviews or other awards. Press coverage of the awards themselves is mostly limited to reporting on the winners, there is no in-depth discussion or coverage to add, to my knowledge at least. It would seem that these individual list articles would be stubs forever more. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I still disagree, work on adding information to the individual articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 00:04, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess what I am trying to ask is what information should be added? RoanokeVirginia (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's boldly turn all those stubs into redirects. They add nothing and I fail to see any justification for keeping them as single articles. (Personally I don't see why we have subpages for each category, since all they add is shortlisted entries that did not win, but I have decided against removing them, instead making it much more obvious to the reader they're there and what they can be used for). CapnZapp (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I found three related templates: {{Whitbread Awards}}, {{Costa awards intro}} and {{Whitbread intro}}. The way they were used strengthened my opinion: we're just seeing needless page duplication. They can probably be removed now. CapnZapp (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

{{Costa awards intro}} & {{Whitbread intro}} are now deleted, Gonnym, thanks. I guess you considered {{Whitbread Awards}} worth saving, even though it really only connects this page and the individual award articles (see next talk topic below). CapnZapp (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The template is not unused or used in one article. If the pages it links to should be merged then that should happen first, but as long as they exist, the template has a useful purpose. Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has said the template was unused or used in one article. I said it really only connects this page and the individual award articles. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Separate articles?

An editor (@Significa liberdade:) has created new separate articles such as Costa Book Award for Poetry. Are these useful, or an unnecessary duplication? I redirected Costa Book Award for First Novel before seeing the pattern. PamD 08:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I intend to add finalists to the pages, which would pull together more information than is currently available anywhere else. Significa liberdade (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: Fair enough: the new articles as they stood looked like unnecessary duplication, but adding shortlists will make them worthwhile additions, and worth including in the Costa Prize navbox once expanded. The shortlists are included in the yearly list articles up to a point, but thematic lists are probably more likely to be of interest to readers. WP:BRD successful! PamD 12:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure we need the shortlisted entries or why we couldn't present them on this page, but okay. Generally there's an awful lot of pages for an amount of content appropriate for only a single page (this page): see previous talk section CapnZapp (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Awards cancelled?

I'm quite confused as to the wording regarding the future of these awards.

The article states that the awards themselves have been cancelled. However, to the best of my understanding, all that has happened is that Costa Coffee has stopped sponsoring them. I don't see that as being any guarantee that the awards won't continue under a different sponsor - after all, they used to be the Whitbread Awards before Costa took over sponsorship.

I can't find any information as to the future of the awards, but surely the article shouldn't suggest that the awards will stop happening until there's clarification that there won't be a new sponsor. ~~~~ George.millman (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The info we have is that the awards are done, stopped, cancelled. If a new sponsor decides to restart them, we'll obviously add that! :) CapnZapp (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)