Comments from Littlecarmen
- "The 9th Academy Awards ceremony was held in 1937 with Walter Brennan receiving the award for his role in Come and Get It." You need to mention that this was the first year the award was presented.
- "Initially winners" Add a comma after "initially".
- There's a huge clear space after the "Multiple wins and nominations". Remove one or two pictures to fix this.
- ref #6: Link the LA Times and Tribune Publishing.
- The Academy Awards Database is dead. I don't know if this may only be temporary, though.
- Don't link articles multiple times within one table. Littlecarmen (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed: I addressed all the problems.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't fix the last one. Walter Brennan is linked a total of six times throughout the article, even though one link would be enough. Same with a lot of other actors. Littlecarmen (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not very sure about this. I removed one link from the Brennan caption, but I left the ones in the introductory paragraph and the tables. There was a similar issue at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Daytime_Emmy_Award_for_Outstanding_Lead_Actor_in_a_Drama_Series/archive1 regarding WP:Overlinking in the tables. Normally multiple linked tables are suited only for sortable tables, however I can't enable sorting because it would create more problems with nominees being paired with the wrong films and such. Another issue is consistency. I have two other lists that have been promoted as featured list (Lead Actor and Lead Actress) and there was no comment about overlinkage. If I unlink the multiple nominees here, it would make the table look aesthetically unappealing and it would confuse readers as to why some names are linked and some not. For example, in the Best Actress list Katharine Hepburn was nominated 12 times over 48 years. Unlinking the 11 other instances would force readers especially on mobile devices to scroll up and down to find her link in the article. If I unlike the multiple nominees here, people might question me as to why am I have multiple links in Best Actor and Actress but not in Supporting Actor (to the possible point of delisting) So why now?
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would've raised the same issue with the other lists if I had been there to review them. The issue of having to scroll up to find the article link applies to all articles but really isn't an issue in my opinion. I don't think removing links makes the tables aesthetically unappealing at all. I think it would be okay to leave one link per actor in the table since WP:Overlinking allows that, but six links are just too much. Littlecarmen (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Littlecarmen: It's not really about aesthetics. You can link more than once if it is useful to the reader which is specified in WP:OVERLINKING. This is the case here. For a multiple winner/nominee, the reader would be forced to look up the first win/nomination in the table to go to the relevant article on the actor. Cowlibob (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I've been trying to say to Littlecarmen. It would be super inconvenient for a reader to search for the first win/nomination in the table in order to find the link if I only linked the first time. For an example in this case, a reader would have to find Robert Duvall's link in 1979 (as opposed to simply clicking on his name in 1998 or 2014). That might frustrate some viewers especially people reading this list on mobile devices or those who do not know when his first nomination is off the top of their head and would get crosseyed searching through 395 nominees. I know the Walter Brennan nominations are close together, but actors like Duvall have nominations that are spread out over several years which would be inconvenient for several readers (his nominations are between 19 and 16 years in this table which is long enough for mobile readers). And we could not just unlink Brennan's name alone because that would not be consistent.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The issue of having to scroll up to find the article link applies to all articles but really isn't an issue in my opinion." I already addressed this. Do you also want to link articles over and over and over again in other articles? I don't think having to scroll up a little is inconvenient at all, I think you're underestimating readers' patience. Littlecarmen (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not seem inconvenient to some people, but there are people who do view this article on cell phones or small devices. We have to be considerate about everyone who will read this list. Besides, this is not an article, it's more a list with a really long table. I read WP:Overlinking and it does say "if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables".
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I interpreted that part as meaning that articles that have already been linked in the lead can also be linked once more in an infobox, table, image caption, footnote, hatnote, and at the first occurrence after the lead, which concurs with my advice to link actors (also ones that have already been linked in the lead) once more in the table, but not more than that. I don't see how this not being an article changes things. There's actually a lot more text to scroll through in most articles and people also read those on small devices. I also find it quite condescending of you to ask other users to explain the rules to me just because I disagree with you on something. They're not very complicated and I understand them quite well. Littlecarmen (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SchroCat, Crisco 1492, and PresN: Before this gets personal, let's just get the delegates to decide. The issue is whether it is ok to link actor's names multiple times in the table if they have won or been nominated multiple times. Paging..Cowlibob (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous consensus has been to allow it in sortable tables. This one's not sortable, so... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to point out, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series, and Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance are all featured lists that are overlinked and unsortable. I tried doing sortable to the table, but it completely messes up the table like this: (http://postimg.org/image/tli5irot5/). --Birdienest81 (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. It's a problem with the rowspan template. It doesn't sort. So if you use row span, you're stuck with an unsortable table. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Try sorting by name, then by year again. It doesn't reform. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yeah, rowspans don't reform. Doesn't mean they don't sort- just means that as soon as you sort by something, the table converts to a non-rowspanned column, just like you'd have if you didn't use rowspans at all. Anyway- I fixed the table on this list so that it sorts; if you decide that you don't want it to be sortable please just remove the "sortable" class from the table itself, don't revert the change. The table as it was was broken- you had the year column with a 6-row span, then inserted an invisible row to the 5 rows that were actually there. When I made it sortable it kept injecting a new row for every year, and the first year was just a huge mess. You also had it trying to make the table yellow with dark gray headers, then overriding that. Also, as per sorting- your actor column is sorting by first name, not last name, so you'll want to use {{sortname}} to fix that, and your film column is sort by a, an, and the, so you'll need to use {{sort}} to fix those. See the first row of the table at Hugo Award for Best Novel for an example. --PresN 03:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a great idea, but I'm in the midst of studying for finals. Either someone else has to do it, or wait until May 22. Also it would be nice if the same modifications be made for the other Oscar acting awards lists.--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To respond to one of the points above, in cases where items in a list appear more than once, we suspend the normal guidelines that recommend against overlinking. If an actor has more than one nomination in a career, I see no issue with links for each nom. In fact, WP:OVERLINK itself allows for repeat links in tables. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Littlecarmen: What are your thoughts now? Have added sorting to film, actor and role column. As it is now a sortable table, there should be no issue about linking names multiple times as Crisco and Giants2008 agree. Thanks, PresN for adding the initial sortability to the table. Cowlibob (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It still doesn't make sense to me to interpret "a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead" as saying that a link can be repeated over and over again within an infobox, table, image caption, footnote or hatnote. I guess it's a little ambiguous about tables, since other people have interpreted it differently, but it makes no sense to repeat a link within an infobox, image caption, footnote or hatnote, does it? So I still don't agree that WP:Overlinking technically allows overlinking in tables, even if they're sortable (it would actually make more sense to me to allow it in non-sortable tables since you would automatically see the first link if you sorted it by actor), but if the delegates agree that it's okay, I'm fine with it. I feel like much too big of a deal was made of this anyway. Littlecarmen (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Littlecarmen: Sorry, if I was being a little insistent about the overlink, but at least we decided to ultimately leave it up to the delegates to decide (as is the case when things get heated up). This overlink debate has been going on for years, and TECHNICALLY the rules do allow bypassing of WP:Overlink in special cases with permission from the delegates as Giants2008 pointed out (the Academy Award ceremonies are overlinked in the tables and unsortable because of special permission during the 82nd Academy Awards's FLC review in 2010. That being said, could you kindly wrap these comments in a bar so that they don't create a long mess for other commenters? I can help you if you want.--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
