Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Awards (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This page does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 Low  This page has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Category talk:Wikipedia barnstar templates[edit]

Is this assessment legitimate? I don't think Wikipedia barnstars are in your scope. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Looks to me like someone forgot "Wikipedia" in WP:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards. @Awkwafaba: Any thoughts as the one that tagged it? -2pou (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the banner and hope this is okay. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox award § Using image for current award rather than text[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox award § Using image for current award rather than text. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Bias in award importance[edit]

Browsing the list of Top-importance awards Category:Top-importance awards articles there seem to be some very strange entries.

The most egregious is the large set of US-state level Emmy awards. This is probably not so much the result of systemic bias, more the unnoticed behaviour of a single editor ten years ago who has not been corrected since. The criterion at WP:WPAW#Rating articles is that "Top" should go to awards which are "familiar worldwide", with the excellent example of the Nobel prizes. So I'm asking now if there is any reason why this set of US-state level Emmys should not be immediately re-graded?

More broadly, I find some awards which are significant in my country in their field and are known to some extent internationally are listed as Low. In general, articles about non-USA awards are one, two, or three levels importance levels lower than their USA equivalents, lower if the country is not English-speaking. For example, all the Theatre award articles, such as Molière Award contain a sentence such as "The Molière Awards are considered the highest French theatre honour, the equivalent to the American Tony Award, the British Olivier Award and the Spanish Premios Max." Yet the importance ratings are currently Tony:Top, Olivier:High, Moliere:Mid. (Max is not yet rated.) This is just one example, but it does have the appearance of systemic bias. --Monxton (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps there is nobody here any more? I did receive some support, but no response whatsoever here. I have moved those US regional awards for television programs out of the Nobel prize class, but there is still work to be done if anyone is taking these importance classifications seriously. If not, perhaps they should be eliminated. --Monxton (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
There will never be agreement on what is "top" importance. I neve pay attention to those things. Also these categories were originally meant for the purpose of what the Project is supposed to focus on for improvement, due to page hits and other things ie. important for Wikipedia management purposes, more so than any objective notion of an actual scale of importance, but that distinction long ago evaporated, and this project like many others is not very active anyway. -- GreenC 03:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for bothering to respond. I can certainly agree that there is going to be subjectivity in assessment. I don't agree with an apparent implication that cultural bias is unimportant.
The table I linked to already WP:WPAW#Rating articles fairly clearly sets out assessment criteria for awards articles. Are you familiar with that table? That's where I got my understanding of what importance was intended to mean. If as you say importance is about about page hits and so on, then since there are automated tools which will measure that sort of thing much better, why have human assessments at all? If they are meaningless, then shouldn't they be eliminated? --Monxton (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The table says why it is important, for project management purposes ie. let's focus on these articles to improve as a project team because we, the few dozen members of this team, believe these to to be important. It's not meant in the sense of a general purpose list of most important awards for general consumption. -- GreenC 20:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I get that the table is about the importance of articles, not about the importance of awards per se, but that seems an unnecessary nuance when the writers of the table use the article as a proxy for its subject. For example "Subject is one of the most highly recognised awards in its field. This should be familiar to most people internationally."
As you say, the project is not very active, so if the members choose to believe that their regional US television program awards deserve the same focus as a Nobel prize, I will leave them to it. Thanks. --Monxton (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The person who added the tags appears to be Canyouhearmenow, so maybe they are interested in joining the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
NATAS itself looks at these awards as extremely important and therefore their importance was noted into the article a long time ago. While the awards are in fact regional versus country wide, they still encompass an area of 50% of the country, they still are broadcasted on television as an awards broadcast with commercial sponsors and a legitimate airtime slot just like the Primetime, Daytime, Sports and Special Event Emmys. They simply cannot acknowledge all of the contributors in one broadcast so they allow the regions to do that for them. So, the academy looks at Emmy Award winners as Emmy Award winners no matter on what level they receive the honor on. Being a former member of the board of directors for NATAS for 6 years we never distinguished regionals to be less important simply because they reached a lesser audience. [I also see you continuing to use the term "International or Internationally"] The awards are subjective and cannot be considered or classified by importance as "International" as they are US based awards. There are programs that are outside of the US that can be recognized but that can be done on a regional level as well. Regional areas that are close to Canada for instance sometimes incorporate Canadian programming into the awards because they are broadcasting across the US boundaries. Canyouhearmenow 03:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by. GreenC has been arguing that the importance of the articles does not necessarily reflect the importance of the awards, but that doesn't seem to be your POV. Let me just reiterate as GreenC says, that importance ranking doesn't make any difference to the presentation of the articles to the reader.
I'm going to refer you again to the table at WP:WPAW#Rating articles, because that is where international awareness is noted as a key attribute of importance. It's not an idea that came out of my head as you may be implying, it's from the heart of this project. If you read the first few entries on this talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards/Archive 1 you can see how the criteria were discussed and agreed. The project asserts that they expect there to be "about 10" awards in the top category. Also that subordinate articles, for example about individual years of the Nobel prizes, or prizes for smaller regions would be in lower importance levels than the singular highest level article, in your case the Emmy Award article.
You know, if these American television awards have so many awardees every year that they can't be dealt with in a single broadcast, that's pretty conclusive evidence that they are only significant within their field and country. A top-importance award, like a Nobel prize, is one that makes headline news worldwide. --Monxton (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I completely understand what you are trying to say. That is why Wikipedia allows editors a certain level of discretion in an effort to bring what they feel is an importance to the subject. I do agree that an Emmy Award is not in anyway as important as a Nobel Prize, however, I think what GreenC is saying is true as well. Editors pay very little attention to the importance tags but rather to the subject of the article itself by building it to prove its importance. I dont know that I agree with having these tags at all because they are subjective to opinion. People who are the recipients of these awards surely feel that their award is just as important to them as someone who wins a Nobel. We can also not reduce their work simply because we feel that it doesn't match up to the level of a Nobel. To them it does and in the eyes of the public it is. When I created these articles years ago I did so because there was a huge outcry from Emmy Award winners who were not being recognized properly. SO when I tagged the articles I did so simply because of the guidelines put in place during that time. Since that time, I have not paid much attention to the importance tag but rather to the quality of the article. So, I again understand where you are coming from and agree as a whole but I also agree with our brother editor that we should be looking at the quality of the subject rather than the importance of its tag. Canyouhearmenow 02:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
"Everybody has won, and all must have prizes."? Sure, awards are subjective. We >could< edit all the award articles and re-classify every one as Top importance according to your argument. But I think the man on the Clapham omnibus would reasonably recognise some awards as being more significant than others. This discussion has strayed from my original point, that those people assigning importance to award articles appear to be displaying cultural bias, in particular a USA-centric bias, and have not followed the assessment criteria of this WikiProject. However I am not implying that you (Canyouhearmenow) have any responsibility for that; after all the only articles you assessed were those you had yourself written (I don't think that's actually how it's supposed to work Face-smile.svg) and the claim that every one is Top importance, while it could be described as bias, is a rather different kind. I appreciate that you took the trouble to respond. --Monxton (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(Monxton) I believe if you look at the articles I created I had very little to do with the importance tags. I created the talk pages if memory serves me correctly, but I dont believe I set the importance tags outside of what was already set or what the guidelines required at that time. My goal was to get the articles started and have editorial help to build them. However, again, I understand your argument and as I have clearly stated, "I do not feel certain awards are greater than a Nobel" However, given the recipients point of view as well was the academies that present these awards they would clearly argue the importance of the award, the recipients and the quality of work submitted for awards considerations. So, again it is subjective and lent to the editors interpretations. I believe we are going around in a circle here. We are clearly stating similar views but in a different way. The importance tags IMO is non-essential to the articles. They rarely serve a purpose and are usually overlooked by the editors working on the subjects. So, there is my argument and I dont know that there is anything more I can add to this discussion other than I believe wholeheartedly that the quality of the article should be where the attention is placed and not the importance of its importance tag. IMO... Canyouhearmenow 00:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Canyouhearmenow I did think we had finished here. You seem to be an experienced editor, and I apologise for assuming you would know how to view page history. Here's one example: Ohio Valley Emmy Awards; I have not checked every single article but all those I have reviewed were similar. --Monxton (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
(Monxton) While it is true that I placed the talk page there and I put the importance tag there per the page requirement, I did not however assess the page myself but rather left that for a fellow editor to do so. I simply put the tag there per the page requirement as do many page creators on Wikipedia. For some reason I feel as though you are trying to find exception with this issue? If you are that passionate about the tag pages then by all means change them and explain the change in your summary and then allow other editors to deal with it as they see fit. I have already given my point of view and at this point I just do not see a reason to continue on with this issue. I hope you well in your editing endeavors. Canyouhearmenow 03:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Canyouhearmenow: You are correct that it is common for the author to insert the template, which draws the article to the attention of a patroller. It would however be perverse to assess your own article by filling in the fields of the template. In other words, you may insert {{WikiProject Awards|importance= |class=}}. Whereas what you actually inserted was {{WikiProject Awards|importance=Top |class=Start}}. By doing so you assessed your own page. You have been shown the evidence, please stop denying it. --Monxton (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it is easy to identify the top award in a group (Top TV award of the UK, top military award of China) but when you go across those categories, it gets pretty subjective. I work more in the category space but I have occasionally add the class and importance of articles I have created, which probably isn't best practice. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I agree on both your points. If you are an expert in the field, then you may be the best person to assess your article's importance ... but if all your own articles are self-assessed at the highest possible level there may be something a bit wrong. I was more bothered really by the persistent denial of what happened. Anyway, I have now restored the Top-level to something more like what was originally intended, I hope. I probably won't go any deeper. --Monxton (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Dev Patel[edit]

This list was previously totally unsourced save for two refs in the lead. I have since sourced the entire table and expanded the lead somewhat. I would like to possibly nominate it for featured list status one day but until then I was hoping someone could take a look and see if there are any further improvements to be made that I have missed. Here doesn't seem to be very active but I don't know where else would be equally appropriate to ask. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)