This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 November 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Background info should stay. It was reviewed in a peer review, and then reviewed again for WP:FL featured list status, for the page 29th Golden Raspberry Awards. It helps to provide background and context about the event. The article should be able to function as a stand-alone page about the subject. Cirt ( talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
[2] followed by [3] = disruptive and not constructive. Please stop. This is sourced info and relevant background info, that should remain in this article. Thank you. -- Cirt ( talk) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Three times now, this user has removed a significant amount of sourced material from this article's page - indeed, the user blanked out an entire sourced subsection. This is inappropriate. The info should be restored. It is relevant, noteworthy, and sourced to multiple WP:RS secondary sources. It is a relatively small amount of Background info, which helps to ground the reader in the subject matter. Take for example, the Featured List page on the same subject, 29th Golden Raspberry Awards, which also provides background info. Will request third opinion for first step in dispute resolution here. Thank you, -- Cirt ( talk) 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Taken verbatim from WP:LSC: "Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected." This section that is getting removed is summarizing the background information on the Golden Raspberry Award. This is also not improper content forking because this falls under the section on related articles. Golden Raspberry Award is on the Golden Raspberry Award itself, whereas this article is on the people who have accepted it. The content forking guideline states that related articles will have a lot of material in common.— Reaper Eternal ( talk) 18:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
Would it be possible to move this article so it does not use "List of"? It does not appear to count as a list article, since a list is supposed to follow the lead section. Here, the list follows the lead section and nearly 2,000 additional words of prose. It would be worth re-defining the scope of this particular topic to accommodate the text. It reminds me more of a film article with a list of awards toward the end. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Done, moved page title to Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards by recipients, per above suggestions by Erik ( talk · contribs) and Reaper Eternal ( talk · contribs). Many thanks, great suggestion. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
To help improve this article, I'm going to add a cleanup tag to attract attention to it. Hopefully other editors can help to improve it. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed this tag, as all issues outstanding have since been addressed. Hopefully this is all Done now, to the satisfaction of Yaksar ( talk · contribs), and without further complaints. -- Cirt ( talk) 16:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to start working on cleaning up duplicate sentences, since as of now the article has multiple repeats. Any help or input is appreciated. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the recent removal of sourced info from this article page appropriate? 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The information on the page is appropriately sourced and the Background section grounds the reader within the topic before proceeding on to a more specific discussion of the history. Reaper Eternal ( talk · contribs) correctly cited multiple policies which support retaining this material. Yaksar ( talk · contribs) should cease removing sourced material from this page, abide by the warning he received at WP:AN3, and defer to talk page discussion and the opinion provided by the Third Opinion respondent, Reaper Eternal ( talk · contribs). -- Cirt ( talk) 20:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
So, since the first dispute all I've done is delete a single sentence that is repeated twice in the article (on the price of the award). The moderator involved int he original dispute even said this edit was not disruptive. Cirt seems to be unwilling to let an article with obvious faults be cleaned up. I couldn't care less if I'm involved, but I'd like to see this article improved. Cirt seems to be hiding behind certain parts of rules (and indeed has been using some of these rules incorrectly) in an effort to prevent change, which clearly goes against the spirit of the encyclopedia. But if this draws attention to the article and brings editors willing to help improve it, I guess I'm cool with it. Also, I did add explanation for the cleanup tag, both on the talk page the before the first time and in my edit summary for the second. I'm not sure why Cirt insists I didn't. Also, since Cirt did not note it above, I'd like to point out that a second (?) third respondent also gave input, stating that the article should be trimmed down. I'd also like to highlight Cirt's complaint to the moderator of the dispute requesting a ban, which was denied because my edit was deemed as "not disruptive. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that we are judging this article based on Golden Raspberry Award, and thus claiming that this article is too large. However, my opinion is that Golden Raspberry Award needs to be expanded to include all the available information, since this article is of far better quality. We should not judge an article nearing FL-quality by an article at C or start quality. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that a merge is necessary since none of the four criteria are met: 1) The articles are not duplicates, 2) It is not violating WP:DICDEF, 3) Neither article is short, and 4) This list provides sufficient context, which appears to be the whole complaint about this article—that it provides background information for context! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
While I share your concerns about this article Yaksar, further edits/removal of content could be considered unconstructive, and an admin they be forced to block you if he believes you will keep editing without a consensus. I believe the overlap between this article and Golden Raspberry Awards warrants a merge along the lines of my suggestion above. If you agree with that, I think the next step would be for you to nominate the articles for merging by following the instructions at Help:Merging. Even if a full merge isn't accepted, the review process may reach a consensus on how the content is distributed between the two articles, which is the fundamental problem here. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
While I have never been involved in this content dispute, I agree with the concerns by Cirt and Reaper Eternal. Removing well-sourced material is disruptive, unless poorly-sourced material will be removed without disruption. Further removal of well-sourced content as well as unsourced content would cause a violation of 3RR, which I am fully aware of. That list also provides sufficient background information as well. As such, I believe that the well-sourced material which was repeatedly removed should stay in this article. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
So let's try doing this one small step at a time. The intro paragraph and the "background" section seem to say the exact same thing. Can we at least fix the article so this is not the case? Yaksar (let's chat) 23:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Update: I have trimmed down the size of the lede/intro sect, again. Hopefully this is now to the satisfaction of Yaksar ( talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I have trimmed down the info in the article to just a brief description. I have removed the Background sect. I have sourced the info, from the previous and now removed Background sect, directly into the lede/intro itself. Is everyone satisfied now? Please? -- Cirt ( talk) 14:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This edit [6] by Yaksar ( talk · contribs) is inappropriate. Please see sect WP:MOSBEGIN of page WP:LEAD. It links to List of environmental issues, which uses the exact same format. Please, do not remove it again. Thank you. -- Cirt ( talk) 15:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, I have changed it back. Thanks. -- Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Should this be deleted now? -- Yaksar (let's chat) 16:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
"Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards by recipients has changed over time as the awards process has gained more prominence." sounds stilted and awkward, and was originally phrased that way to match the old name of the article. It can be changed now. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I changed the first sentence. I removed the WP:NOR violation. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
As brought up by another user, Barry Pepper does not seem to meet the criteria for this list. While I can see the merits of including him, I think he needs to be removed. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe this article's title should be "List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards", with the word have added to it, as with articles like this and this. Thank you.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Could someone who is better at editing lists that I am add Julie Newmar to the Catwoman section of the list? Thanks! Yaksar (let's chat) 01:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed Conrad. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not appropriate for the WP:LEAD to make such POV assertions. Please, do not make this revert again, without discussing it here on the talk page to obtain consensus. Thanks. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 November 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Background info should stay. It was reviewed in a peer review, and then reviewed again for WP:FL featured list status, for the page 29th Golden Raspberry Awards. It helps to provide background and context about the event. The article should be able to function as a stand-alone page about the subject. Cirt ( talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
[2] followed by [3] = disruptive and not constructive. Please stop. This is sourced info and relevant background info, that should remain in this article. Thank you. -- Cirt ( talk) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Three times now, this user has removed a significant amount of sourced material from this article's page - indeed, the user blanked out an entire sourced subsection. This is inappropriate. The info should be restored. It is relevant, noteworthy, and sourced to multiple WP:RS secondary sources. It is a relatively small amount of Background info, which helps to ground the reader in the subject matter. Take for example, the Featured List page on the same subject, 29th Golden Raspberry Awards, which also provides background info. Will request third opinion for first step in dispute resolution here. Thank you, -- Cirt ( talk) 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
Taken verbatim from WP:LSC: "Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected." This section that is getting removed is summarizing the background information on the Golden Raspberry Award. This is also not improper content forking because this falls under the section on related articles. Golden Raspberry Award is on the Golden Raspberry Award itself, whereas this article is on the people who have accepted it. The content forking guideline states that related articles will have a lot of material in common.— Reaper Eternal ( talk) 18:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC) |
Would it be possible to move this article so it does not use "List of"? It does not appear to count as a list article, since a list is supposed to follow the lead section. Here, the list follows the lead section and nearly 2,000 additional words of prose. It would be worth re-defining the scope of this particular topic to accommodate the text. It reminds me more of a film article with a list of awards toward the end. Erik ( talk | contribs) 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Done, moved page title to Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards by recipients, per above suggestions by Erik ( talk · contribs) and Reaper Eternal ( talk · contribs). Many thanks, great suggestion. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
To help improve this article, I'm going to add a cleanup tag to attract attention to it. Hopefully other editors can help to improve it. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I have removed this tag, as all issues outstanding have since been addressed. Hopefully this is all Done now, to the satisfaction of Yaksar ( talk · contribs), and without further complaints. -- Cirt ( talk) 16:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to start working on cleaning up duplicate sentences, since as of now the article has multiple repeats. Any help or input is appreciated. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the recent removal of sourced info from this article page appropriate? 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The information on the page is appropriately sourced and the Background section grounds the reader within the topic before proceeding on to a more specific discussion of the history. Reaper Eternal ( talk · contribs) correctly cited multiple policies which support retaining this material. Yaksar ( talk · contribs) should cease removing sourced material from this page, abide by the warning he received at WP:AN3, and defer to talk page discussion and the opinion provided by the Third Opinion respondent, Reaper Eternal ( talk · contribs). -- Cirt ( talk) 20:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
So, since the first dispute all I've done is delete a single sentence that is repeated twice in the article (on the price of the award). The moderator involved int he original dispute even said this edit was not disruptive. Cirt seems to be unwilling to let an article with obvious faults be cleaned up. I couldn't care less if I'm involved, but I'd like to see this article improved. Cirt seems to be hiding behind certain parts of rules (and indeed has been using some of these rules incorrectly) in an effort to prevent change, which clearly goes against the spirit of the encyclopedia. But if this draws attention to the article and brings editors willing to help improve it, I guess I'm cool with it. Also, I did add explanation for the cleanup tag, both on the talk page the before the first time and in my edit summary for the second. I'm not sure why Cirt insists I didn't. Also, since Cirt did not note it above, I'd like to point out that a second (?) third respondent also gave input, stating that the article should be trimmed down. I'd also like to highlight Cirt's complaint to the moderator of the dispute requesting a ban, which was denied because my edit was deemed as "not disruptive. Yaksar (let's chat) 20:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that we are judging this article based on Golden Raspberry Award, and thus claiming that this article is too large. However, my opinion is that Golden Raspberry Award needs to be expanded to include all the available information, since this article is of far better quality. We should not judge an article nearing FL-quality by an article at C or start quality. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 17:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not think that a merge is necessary since none of the four criteria are met: 1) The articles are not duplicates, 2) It is not violating WP:DICDEF, 3) Neither article is short, and 4) This list provides sufficient context, which appears to be the whole complaint about this article—that it provides background information for context! Reaper Eternal ( talk) 17:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
While I share your concerns about this article Yaksar, further edits/removal of content could be considered unconstructive, and an admin they be forced to block you if he believes you will keep editing without a consensus. I believe the overlap between this article and Golden Raspberry Awards warrants a merge along the lines of my suggestion above. If you agree with that, I think the next step would be for you to nominate the articles for merging by following the instructions at Help:Merging. Even if a full merge isn't accepted, the review process may reach a consensus on how the content is distributed between the two articles, which is the fundamental problem here. Betty Logan ( talk) 17:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
While I have never been involved in this content dispute, I agree with the concerns by Cirt and Reaper Eternal. Removing well-sourced material is disruptive, unless poorly-sourced material will be removed without disruption. Further removal of well-sourced content as well as unsourced content would cause a violation of 3RR, which I am fully aware of. That list also provides sufficient background information as well. As such, I believe that the well-sourced material which was repeatedly removed should stay in this article. Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
So let's try doing this one small step at a time. The intro paragraph and the "background" section seem to say the exact same thing. Can we at least fix the article so this is not the case? Yaksar (let's chat) 23:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Update: I have trimmed down the size of the lede/intro sect, again. Hopefully this is now to the satisfaction of Yaksar ( talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I have trimmed down the info in the article to just a brief description. I have removed the Background sect. I have sourced the info, from the previous and now removed Background sect, directly into the lede/intro itself. Is everyone satisfied now? Please? -- Cirt ( talk) 14:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
This edit [6] by Yaksar ( talk · contribs) is inappropriate. Please see sect WP:MOSBEGIN of page WP:LEAD. It links to List of environmental issues, which uses the exact same format. Please, do not remove it again. Thank you. -- Cirt ( talk) 15:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, I have changed it back. Thanks. -- Cirt ( talk) 16:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Should this be deleted now? -- Yaksar (let's chat) 16:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
"Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards by recipients has changed over time as the awards process has gained more prominence." sounds stilted and awkward, and was originally phrased that way to match the old name of the article. It can be changed now. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I changed the first sentence. I removed the WP:NOR violation. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
As brought up by another user, Barry Pepper does not seem to meet the criteria for this list. While I can see the merits of including him, I think he needs to be removed. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe this article's title should be "List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards", with the word have added to it, as with articles like this and this. Thank you.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 20:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Could someone who is better at editing lists that I am add Julie Newmar to the Catwoman section of the list? Thanks! Yaksar (let's chat) 01:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed Conrad. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not appropriate for the WP:LEAD to make such POV assertions. Please, do not make this revert again, without discussing it here on the talk page to obtain consensus. Thanks. -- Cirt ( talk) 02:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)