This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play 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 |
Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 7, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that five actresses have won the
Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play more than once, but no actress has won it more than twice? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Tony Awards, due to size or style considerations. |
Trivia sections are discouraged, and the one in this article probably needs to be removed or better incorporated into the article (sources wouldn't hurt, either). — Mears man ( talk) 06:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus. Insufficient evidence that current title is too long, or that shorter title is correct. Next time, please use multi-move. Born2cycle ( talk) 05:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Tony Award for Best Performance by a Featured Actress in a Play → Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play — It is currently too long and more often refereed by the other. JDDJS ( talk) 21:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:Tony Award for Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Play#Requested move. Andrewa ( talk) 02:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have a few issues with the way this page is formatted. 1st of all, the pictures are not needed, they take up too much space, and are just those actresses profile pictures that people can see if they click on their page. People will come to this site to see the awards history, not their pictures.
2nd, the nominees font size is way too small. I can barely see the names, and the amount of space given to the winners within the graph built is too much. It would be nice if, like the way I edited it earlier, all the nominees and winners characters names were available since that is something those coming to this page will be looking for.
Also, why so many references? they make the page look cluttered and are not needed. Awards are concrete and don't need to be verified to that extent when one click over to the Official Tony Awards site will give you proof of what is already on the page.
Another thing is a lot of the links do not go to pages about the plays mentioned, but too movies based on those plays. A movie based on the play has nothing to do with the play when it was on Broadway, and will give the reader no information if they are looking for info about the play, so unless there is a page on Wikipedia for just the play, there should be no link.
Finally, like the way most other award pages are built, there is no tally anywhere that says the amount of winners and nominees, something that people will for sure want. Thanks, Rharrington112 ( talk) 09:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
How do you know what people are coming to this page for? I have been using the Wikipedia pages for awards analysis for the past two years, I am known in the awards online community (mainly focused on the Academy Awards, in which we are referred to as 'Oscar Buzzers'. When Oscar season is over I change my focus to the Tony Awards. I actually began creating new articles and editing on Wikipedia a year ago when I became frustrated that there were actors nominated for these awards that had no pages and after finding numerous errors in awards lists. I believe Wikipedia has the best format to show readers nominees lists because they can be very professional and easy to read and understandable at the same time. They can also include more information than most organization's websites care to, like character names which the current editors version does not show. I am very knowledged in awards history and I am also a performer and am involved in Theatre. I'm not sure if the current editor has a background in theatre, but I did notice they he seems to be building featured lists for some sort of 'point' total, so I question his knowledge or caring about what the pages actual content is.
What does "within the graph built" mean? Not wishing to appear rude, but is English your first language? Yes, English is my first language, I live in the Midwestern region of the United States. By that comment I meant that the chart that is built (not sure how else to say it)(which I haven't seen in any other awards listing on Wiki) is much more complicated than the one I used and more easier to adjust if needed. The sizes the editor used for the font are too small for the nominees and the winners box has extra and too much space. The list I built shows every nominee and their character names easily and simply and is the format most used on Wikipedia. This is the format used for the Academy Awards pages which get thousands of views everyday (much more than the Tony Awards sadly, except around Tony season it goes up slightly)) and if it's good enough for the Academy Awards it's good enough for the Tonys! The editor who made the featured list does not have experience working with acting lists as he has previously only worked with sports teams and other types of lists that aren't viewed as much as acting awards lists. There are few places on the internet that show nominees and winners and Wikipedia can only benefit from having a uniform way to show awards, which is also used for the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama and the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role in the same way I had formatted this page (except in blue instead of yellow, I prefer the yellow like the Academy Awards pages because it stands out from the blue color of the letters)
References should ideally come from reliable third-party sources, not just primary sources. The version of the page which has community consensus hardly suffers from WP:CITEKILL, have you looked at featured articles etc lately or are you new to the processes we use here on Wikipedia to promote our best material?
I actually think the article is highly overkilled on references. I mean a reference for each year is just not necessary and makes it harder to read when you already have so many names there, having an extra bar just for references makes the page look much to busy and I personally like things as simple and neat as possible. I don't understand why so many references are needed when you can click to the Tony Awards page link available at the end of the page and verify instantly the nominees and winners. (Internet Broadway Database is another excellent reference site)
Instead of entirely removing links to pages which are sort-of relevant, you'd be better advised to link them to the Broadway page article (which doesn't exist) so we have a redlink that will encourage editors to create the page.
I've always found the red links to be an eyesore, especially when they are all over the page. Most of the plays that don't have individual pages are because they were very small and didn't having long runs so not enough is known or remembered to build their own page, so it's likely they never will (or shouldn't) have their own page anyway. In the current editor's version, most of the links go to pages of the movies based on those plays that have little to no information about the Broadway production, and I don't think it's worth having a link there if it's not going to give the reader what they are most likely looking for which is information about the Broadway play.
How do you know that people want "the amount of winners and nominees" in separate sections "for sure"? The community consensus reached at the aforementioned FLC didn't seem to draw the same conclusion as you have asserted.
First of all, I looked at the Featured List discussion for this page, and there were hardly enough editors involved for it to be called a 'community' consensus, and in reading the comments they all had to do with the opening paragraph wording, most of which is redundant and irrelevant and doesn't need to be there. When nominations come out (they are coming out on Tuesday May 1st) the first thing us awards folks do is adjust the tallies for who has the most nominations and for what characters if the characters have been nominated before. We can build are own lists, but it would be nice if it would be on Wikipedia for everyone to see, as it is at the bottom of almost every other page, see Academy Award for Best Actress. I know people involved in theatre obsess over the Tony Awards and having this information available would be a valuable tool for readers to be able to have a quick reference instead of trying to count someones amount of total nominations themselves.
Why should the page not be illustrated? Per WP:WIAFL we should "images and other media, if appropriate to the topic" which these current images certainly are.
The photos take up a quarter of the page, and are not needed. I would say maybe if it was say, photos of the actresses in character, which would be cool, but not just a copy of their page's pictures. Plus how do you decide who gets a picture and who doesn't? Doesn't seem fair to me.
Why would you remove the lead entirely? Per WP:WIAFL we should have an "engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria". There really doesn't need to be a lead. Like I've stated above, I like things simple and the leader as written is hard to read. For instance, there is a whole sentence stating who recently won the award, when the same information is in the info box. The rest of the information is already found on the main Tony Awards page. There is also a whole sentence stating who the 1st winner is when the 1st winner is seen without even having to scroll down the page (Patricia Neal). Like I stated above there really isn't any relevant statement that needs to be there and it just makes the page look messy and cluttered, if it is required that the page have a lead, it can be reduced greatly.
Why would you contravene the WP:MOS with heading format failures? With MOS:BOLD failures? Sort of the same as above, I could see if this was a complicated list or topic that needs further explaining, but when you click on an award category the reader is most likely looking for what my version clearly and simply states in what I believe is the best way Wikipedia can offer.
Why would you have two sections for "totals", one of which is effectively blank and the other which the current version allows by sorting the table by name? Well one is the actors total and one is the character total, for example a young student in drama school that is cast in a production of Anna Christie might find it interesting that the character of Marthy Owen has been nominated twice for a Tony Award. With a long list, it can be hard to find and count yourself how many times the character or actor has been nominated, but with a accurate and updated reference list at the bottom of the page, they would easily be able to find this information. The same way if say, someone wanted to know how many times Frances Sternhagen has been nominated.
Why would you contravene the WP:MOS with the incorrect use of double hyphens? Why would you create tables that fail to meet MOS:DTT, another requirement of WP:WIAFL? Why would you contravene WP:ACCESS with the use of colours without accompanying symbology? Why would you use incorrectly formatted references and call them (incorrectly) "External Links"?
These are getting a little nit-picky. I am not aware of the exact guidlines when it comes to things like double hyphens, however within my version these can be easily fixed to go along with what is required compared to the current editors version where the information in the list does not exist. Rharrington112 ( talk) 11:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I think I am misunderstanding you, because I'm not looking for my version to be a featured list candidate (nor do I think the current version should be). I have stated clear reasons and answers to your questions. Obviously the page is stuck the way it is so I will concede. Thanks Rharrington112 ( talk) 12:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
That's one person's opinion (yours). Have an awesome day! Rharrington112 ( talk) 12:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I highly disagree this is Wikipedia's finest work, sorry. References and pictures shouldn't be more important than the actual content/information of the page. Rharrington112 ( talk) 03:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I edited the article to show how it looks with full sized text for the nominees, but I've restored the consensus version, and we can now compare them. If I were to print out the "small" version, it would use 15 pages of A4, whereas the "large" version would require 18 pages of A4. That's quite an increase in the length (20%) and many editors will feel that's a heavy price to pay in terms of scrolling to read all of the list. Of course, I like the larger text because I can read it on my big monitor without my reading glasses. I can't do that with the smaller text, and on a laptop I need my higher-strength glasses for the latter, although I tend to zoom my browser for laptop viewing anyway. There's how I feel about the font-size suggestion, what do others think? -- RexxS ( talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. For style purposes moving forward, which would you say is the better revision: the current version or the proposed change? Seattle ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the images definitely need to go. Those always block space needed for chart information. In terms of the style, as TonyTheTiger said, it should match every other Tony actors' awards article, and any topic-wide change for the Tonys actors' awards articles should require a consensus clearly called out and debated/!voted on every single one of those articles to establish a sitewide consensus. Otherwise, there's no justification for any change. And I'm in agreement with him that the styles should ideally match the comparable articles for the Olivier Awards and Drama Desk Awards; all the live theatre awards should ideally be the same. Softlavender ( talk) 05:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This "consensus" is void because of canvassing by HesioneHushabye. Let me explain:
When HesioneHushabye opened up a discussion calling for a consensus on the format of the Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play at [2], I supported the formation of a consensus before such a stylistic change.
What I take issue with is the canvassing used to get those users to the conversation:
1.) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Angelic-alyssa&diff=prev&oldid=621132702 (mentions "I know you have tried adding character names to Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play and I have as well")
2.) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:TonyTheTiger&diff=prev&oldid=621133290 ("I think the character names are an important part of the list and should be there.")
3.) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Therequiembellishere&diff=prev&oldid=621133713 (same as 2)
4.) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Alrofficial&diff=prev&oldid=621134225 (same as 2)
5.) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:L1975p&diff=prev&oldid=621134154 (same as 2)
6.) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Flami72&diff=prev&oldid=621133965 (same as 2)
In all of these, the user notes "The creator of the list refuses to add them because it is a "Featured List" of his".
In my view, these changes violate Wikipedia:Canvassing because the user is contacting other users with the intent of swaying the outcome of something that should form naturally; the tactic HesioneHushabye used reminds me of a push poll. Seattle ( talk) 00:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play. 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) 07:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Most Tony Award pages are formatted with:
Currently (19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)), 32 / 35 of the existing Tony Awards follow the above format. With that in mind, I'm going to suggest we reformat this page to match the above described format.
Under the "Recipients" section, there is a table/chart of winners and nominees. At the very top of the chart, it reads Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play recipients. Is the word "Actor" a typo? Is it supposed to be "Actress"? Or is this some deliberate gender-neutral term? I am unsure, so I didn't want to make any changes. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 01:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play 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 |
Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 7, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that five actresses have won the
Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play more than once, but no actress has won it more than twice? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Tony Awards, due to size or style considerations. |
Trivia sections are discouraged, and the one in this article probably needs to be removed or better incorporated into the article (sources wouldn't hurt, either). — Mears man ( talk) 06:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus. Insufficient evidence that current title is too long, or that shorter title is correct. Next time, please use multi-move. Born2cycle ( talk) 05:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Tony Award for Best Performance by a Featured Actress in a Play → Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play — It is currently too long and more often refereed by the other. JDDJS ( talk) 21:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:Tony Award for Best Performance by a Leading Actress in a Play#Requested move. Andrewa ( talk) 02:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have a few issues with the way this page is formatted. 1st of all, the pictures are not needed, they take up too much space, and are just those actresses profile pictures that people can see if they click on their page. People will come to this site to see the awards history, not their pictures.
2nd, the nominees font size is way too small. I can barely see the names, and the amount of space given to the winners within the graph built is too much. It would be nice if, like the way I edited it earlier, all the nominees and winners characters names were available since that is something those coming to this page will be looking for.
Also, why so many references? they make the page look cluttered and are not needed. Awards are concrete and don't need to be verified to that extent when one click over to the Official Tony Awards site will give you proof of what is already on the page.
Another thing is a lot of the links do not go to pages about the plays mentioned, but too movies based on those plays. A movie based on the play has nothing to do with the play when it was on Broadway, and will give the reader no information if they are looking for info about the play, so unless there is a page on Wikipedia for just the play, there should be no link.
Finally, like the way most other award pages are built, there is no tally anywhere that says the amount of winners and nominees, something that people will for sure want. Thanks, Rharrington112 ( talk) 09:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
How do you know what people are coming to this page for? I have been using the Wikipedia pages for awards analysis for the past two years, I am known in the awards online community (mainly focused on the Academy Awards, in which we are referred to as 'Oscar Buzzers'. When Oscar season is over I change my focus to the Tony Awards. I actually began creating new articles and editing on Wikipedia a year ago when I became frustrated that there were actors nominated for these awards that had no pages and after finding numerous errors in awards lists. I believe Wikipedia has the best format to show readers nominees lists because they can be very professional and easy to read and understandable at the same time. They can also include more information than most organization's websites care to, like character names which the current editors version does not show. I am very knowledged in awards history and I am also a performer and am involved in Theatre. I'm not sure if the current editor has a background in theatre, but I did notice they he seems to be building featured lists for some sort of 'point' total, so I question his knowledge or caring about what the pages actual content is.
What does "within the graph built" mean? Not wishing to appear rude, but is English your first language? Yes, English is my first language, I live in the Midwestern region of the United States. By that comment I meant that the chart that is built (not sure how else to say it)(which I haven't seen in any other awards listing on Wiki) is much more complicated than the one I used and more easier to adjust if needed. The sizes the editor used for the font are too small for the nominees and the winners box has extra and too much space. The list I built shows every nominee and their character names easily and simply and is the format most used on Wikipedia. This is the format used for the Academy Awards pages which get thousands of views everyday (much more than the Tony Awards sadly, except around Tony season it goes up slightly)) and if it's good enough for the Academy Awards it's good enough for the Tonys! The editor who made the featured list does not have experience working with acting lists as he has previously only worked with sports teams and other types of lists that aren't viewed as much as acting awards lists. There are few places on the internet that show nominees and winners and Wikipedia can only benefit from having a uniform way to show awards, which is also used for the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress – Motion Picture Drama and the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role in the same way I had formatted this page (except in blue instead of yellow, I prefer the yellow like the Academy Awards pages because it stands out from the blue color of the letters)
References should ideally come from reliable third-party sources, not just primary sources. The version of the page which has community consensus hardly suffers from WP:CITEKILL, have you looked at featured articles etc lately or are you new to the processes we use here on Wikipedia to promote our best material?
I actually think the article is highly overkilled on references. I mean a reference for each year is just not necessary and makes it harder to read when you already have so many names there, having an extra bar just for references makes the page look much to busy and I personally like things as simple and neat as possible. I don't understand why so many references are needed when you can click to the Tony Awards page link available at the end of the page and verify instantly the nominees and winners. (Internet Broadway Database is another excellent reference site)
Instead of entirely removing links to pages which are sort-of relevant, you'd be better advised to link them to the Broadway page article (which doesn't exist) so we have a redlink that will encourage editors to create the page.
I've always found the red links to be an eyesore, especially when they are all over the page. Most of the plays that don't have individual pages are because they were very small and didn't having long runs so not enough is known or remembered to build their own page, so it's likely they never will (or shouldn't) have their own page anyway. In the current editor's version, most of the links go to pages of the movies based on those plays that have little to no information about the Broadway production, and I don't think it's worth having a link there if it's not going to give the reader what they are most likely looking for which is information about the Broadway play.
How do you know that people want "the amount of winners and nominees" in separate sections "for sure"? The community consensus reached at the aforementioned FLC didn't seem to draw the same conclusion as you have asserted.
First of all, I looked at the Featured List discussion for this page, and there were hardly enough editors involved for it to be called a 'community' consensus, and in reading the comments they all had to do with the opening paragraph wording, most of which is redundant and irrelevant and doesn't need to be there. When nominations come out (they are coming out on Tuesday May 1st) the first thing us awards folks do is adjust the tallies for who has the most nominations and for what characters if the characters have been nominated before. We can build are own lists, but it would be nice if it would be on Wikipedia for everyone to see, as it is at the bottom of almost every other page, see Academy Award for Best Actress. I know people involved in theatre obsess over the Tony Awards and having this information available would be a valuable tool for readers to be able to have a quick reference instead of trying to count someones amount of total nominations themselves.
Why should the page not be illustrated? Per WP:WIAFL we should "images and other media, if appropriate to the topic" which these current images certainly are.
The photos take up a quarter of the page, and are not needed. I would say maybe if it was say, photos of the actresses in character, which would be cool, but not just a copy of their page's pictures. Plus how do you decide who gets a picture and who doesn't? Doesn't seem fair to me.
Why would you remove the lead entirely? Per WP:WIAFL we should have an "engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria". There really doesn't need to be a lead. Like I've stated above, I like things simple and the leader as written is hard to read. For instance, there is a whole sentence stating who recently won the award, when the same information is in the info box. The rest of the information is already found on the main Tony Awards page. There is also a whole sentence stating who the 1st winner is when the 1st winner is seen without even having to scroll down the page (Patricia Neal). Like I stated above there really isn't any relevant statement that needs to be there and it just makes the page look messy and cluttered, if it is required that the page have a lead, it can be reduced greatly.
Why would you contravene the WP:MOS with heading format failures? With MOS:BOLD failures? Sort of the same as above, I could see if this was a complicated list or topic that needs further explaining, but when you click on an award category the reader is most likely looking for what my version clearly and simply states in what I believe is the best way Wikipedia can offer.
Why would you have two sections for "totals", one of which is effectively blank and the other which the current version allows by sorting the table by name? Well one is the actors total and one is the character total, for example a young student in drama school that is cast in a production of Anna Christie might find it interesting that the character of Marthy Owen has been nominated twice for a Tony Award. With a long list, it can be hard to find and count yourself how many times the character or actor has been nominated, but with a accurate and updated reference list at the bottom of the page, they would easily be able to find this information. The same way if say, someone wanted to know how many times Frances Sternhagen has been nominated.
Why would you contravene the WP:MOS with the incorrect use of double hyphens? Why would you create tables that fail to meet MOS:DTT, another requirement of WP:WIAFL? Why would you contravene WP:ACCESS with the use of colours without accompanying symbology? Why would you use incorrectly formatted references and call them (incorrectly) "External Links"?
These are getting a little nit-picky. I am not aware of the exact guidlines when it comes to things like double hyphens, however within my version these can be easily fixed to go along with what is required compared to the current editors version where the information in the list does not exist. Rharrington112 ( talk) 11:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I think I am misunderstanding you, because I'm not looking for my version to be a featured list candidate (nor do I think the current version should be). I have stated clear reasons and answers to your questions. Obviously the page is stuck the way it is so I will concede. Thanks Rharrington112 ( talk) 12:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
That's one person's opinion (yours). Have an awesome day! Rharrington112 ( talk) 12:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I highly disagree this is Wikipedia's finest work, sorry. References and pictures shouldn't be more important than the actual content/information of the page. Rharrington112 ( talk) 03:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I edited the article to show how it looks with full sized text for the nominees, but I've restored the consensus version, and we can now compare them. If I were to print out the "small" version, it would use 15 pages of A4, whereas the "large" version would require 18 pages of A4. That's quite an increase in the length (20%) and many editors will feel that's a heavy price to pay in terms of scrolling to read all of the list. Of course, I like the larger text because I can read it on my big monitor without my reading glasses. I can't do that with the smaller text, and on a laptop I need my higher-strength glasses for the latter, although I tend to zoom my browser for laptop viewing anyway. There's how I feel about the font-size suggestion, what do others think? -- RexxS ( talk) 00:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. For style purposes moving forward, which would you say is the better revision: the current version or the proposed change? Seattle ( talk) 02:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the images definitely need to go. Those always block space needed for chart information. In terms of the style, as TonyTheTiger said, it should match every other Tony actors' awards article, and any topic-wide change for the Tonys actors' awards articles should require a consensus clearly called out and debated/!voted on every single one of those articles to establish a sitewide consensus. Otherwise, there's no justification for any change. And I'm in agreement with him that the styles should ideally match the comparable articles for the Olivier Awards and Drama Desk Awards; all the live theatre awards should ideally be the same. Softlavender ( talk) 05:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This "consensus" is void because of canvassing by HesioneHushabye. Let me explain:
When HesioneHushabye opened up a discussion calling for a consensus on the format of the Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play at [2], I supported the formation of a consensus before such a stylistic change.
What I take issue with is the canvassing used to get those users to the conversation:
1.) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Angelic-alyssa&diff=prev&oldid=621132702 (mentions "I know you have tried adding character names to Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play and I have as well")
2.) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:TonyTheTiger&diff=prev&oldid=621133290 ("I think the character names are an important part of the list and should be there.")
3.) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Therequiembellishere&diff=prev&oldid=621133713 (same as 2)
4.) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Alrofficial&diff=prev&oldid=621134225 (same as 2)
5.) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:L1975p&diff=prev&oldid=621134154 (same as 2)
6.) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Flami72&diff=prev&oldid=621133965 (same as 2)
In all of these, the user notes "The creator of the list refuses to add them because it is a "Featured List" of his".
In my view, these changes violate Wikipedia:Canvassing because the user is contacting other users with the intent of swaying the outcome of something that should form naturally; the tactic HesioneHushabye used reminds me of a push poll. Seattle ( talk) 00:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play. 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) 07:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Most Tony Award pages are formatted with:
Currently (19:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)), 32 / 35 of the existing Tony Awards follow the above format. With that in mind, I'm going to suggest we reformat this page to match the above described format.
Under the "Recipients" section, there is a table/chart of winners and nominees. At the very top of the chart, it reads Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play recipients. Is the word "Actor" a typo? Is it supposed to be "Actress"? Or is this some deliberate gender-neutral term? I am unsure, so I didn't want to make any changes. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 01:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)