Talk:68th Bodil Awards

Recent table

If I believed a table in this article would benefit the reader, I would have created it with a table and/or updated it with a table, so I fail to understand why a conversion to table in five edits have been performed introducing multiple errors and removing the illustration without explanation, and I will roll back. If there are logical reasons for a table, I'd be happy to hear about it here. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I added the first of these tables on 63rd Bodil Awards a long time ago back when I first began creating these articles and made the nav bar. Back then I postponed introducing it on other pages since I was not sure if it was worthwhile. However, I thought it would be a vompletely uncontroversial step since they seem to be consistently used on other similar pages, cf. for instance 67th British Academy Film Awards, but sorry if it offended you be interfereing with your work. I think they give a better overview than simply to have a list. I have also left you a not on the talk page of the nav bar.Ramblersen (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You did not offend me: although I started the article I do not feel I own it, and I am open for suggestions that make it better. MOS:TABLES are appropriate in a lot of settings, but IMHO this is not one such. I acknowledge that a similar kind of two-columns table is in use on BAFTA and AA pages. If there is a project-wide consensus that this is the preferred way to present the results of a ceremony, I'll accept it for now, but then I will open a discussion about such tables merit or lack of merit as opposed to an embedded list: the reader loose level three headings and have to search for or manually find the info s/he is interested in. Best, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there are both pros and cons when it comes to the use of tables on these pages, so of you prefer the lists let's by all means stick to those. As for the current level one headlines, the destinction between 'Honorees' and 'Recipients' seems somewhat unclear to me. Am I missing something or could more precise headlines be used that more clearly communicated that some of the awards are not Bodil Awards proper but affiliated prizes that are awarded at the same ceremony?Ramblersen (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ramblersen: /Honorees/ and /Recipients/ are level 2 headings. Currently there is no distinction between proper awards (those with statuette) and the external awards (those without). The /Honorees/ section is for the competitive categories (merit awards), the /Recipients/ section is for the non-competitive categories (special awards + external awards). We could make an /External awards/ section? I don't know where I picked up "Honorees" but I'm fine with say "Winners and nominees" if you prefer that. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

To me the external awards seem just as competitive since they are awarded on the basis of merit from the previous year. To me a destinction between 'Winners and nominees' and 'External awards' seems clearer: But I didn't mean to spilt hairs and if 'Honorees' and 'Recipients' works for you, so I'm sure it will for others (although I find it a little funny that Bodil Honorary Award winners are not described as Honorees).Ramblersen (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The two external awards as well as the three special awards are given at the discretion of Bodilkomiteen but they are not subject to nominations from the members of Danish Film Critics Association as are the merit awards. Thus speaking about a winner be it of any of these is a misunderstanding. Have a look at this revision and tell me what you think. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)