![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
This really depends on whether it ought to have more "things" in the lists. I suspect "Best Child Performer" might be a thing too far, but other things may be appropriate.
The challenge is that the template is quite tall. But there are pros and cons of individual collapsing sections:
The template is less intrusive when on the page
One interesting use of the template is seeing how many years are bolded when on an actor's page, especially the fact that at least one best actor has also won best director.
Anyway I hope the template is of use. I was just passing by and got carried away! Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 15:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is entirely my "fault" that I bothered to spend a good amount of time creating a decent template. Normally, when one spends time performing a thankless job one does not expect thanks, but one does not expect it to be torn up and trampled underfoot without at least some discussion.
So, my talk page contains a "thanks, gosh you've been really helpful, but I've torn your work up and stomped on it" comment, which is really not very pleasant to receive.
So, since there has been no discussion, thus no consensus building at all, I am about to revert the template to the way I created it.
Now, how about a proper consensus building? Or is demotivating a fellow editor more fun? Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
My concept was imperfect. Using dates to link to the underlying articles was correct in a pedantic manner (0.8 probability) but also potentially misleading. I feel that the current format, with the names of the winners logged against their dates is a substantial enhancement.
This gives both navigational ease and also strong value to the template. I see this as an excellent development. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 13:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe to add to a possible consensus, I prefer leaving just the MMFF years in the template and leave out the major awards winners sections. In particular, I prefer Girolamo Savonarola's revision. -- seav ( talk) 17:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
THis should really linked on the annual festival links, then separate navboxes should be created for each award category. This navbox is too unwieldy at its current state. – HTD ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I created individual articles for the award categories, and I believe that they should be included in the MMFF template. Consequently, I think that the major awards (Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Picture) should have individual templates from now on. Here's my proposed MMFF template: /info/en/?search=User:001Jrm/sandbox Let me know what you think. :) 001Jrm ( talk) 05:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it about time to MMFF change the template into something like this? 001Jrm ( talk) 06:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
This really depends on whether it ought to have more "things" in the lists. I suspect "Best Child Performer" might be a thing too far, but other things may be appropriate.
The challenge is that the template is quite tall. But there are pros and cons of individual collapsing sections:
The template is less intrusive when on the page
One interesting use of the template is seeing how many years are bolded when on an actor's page, especially the fact that at least one best actor has also won best director.
Anyway I hope the template is of use. I was just passing by and got carried away! Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 15:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is entirely my "fault" that I bothered to spend a good amount of time creating a decent template. Normally, when one spends time performing a thankless job one does not expect thanks, but one does not expect it to be torn up and trampled underfoot without at least some discussion.
So, my talk page contains a "thanks, gosh you've been really helpful, but I've torn your work up and stomped on it" comment, which is really not very pleasant to receive.
So, since there has been no discussion, thus no consensus building at all, I am about to revert the template to the way I created it.
Now, how about a proper consensus building? Or is demotivating a fellow editor more fun? Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
My concept was imperfect. Using dates to link to the underlying articles was correct in a pedantic manner (0.8 probability) but also potentially misleading. I feel that the current format, with the names of the winners logged against their dates is a substantial enhancement.
This gives both navigational ease and also strong value to the template. I see this as an excellent development. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 13:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe to add to a possible consensus, I prefer leaving just the MMFF years in the template and leave out the major awards winners sections. In particular, I prefer Girolamo Savonarola's revision. -- seav ( talk) 17:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
THis should really linked on the annual festival links, then separate navboxes should be created for each award category. This navbox is too unwieldy at its current state. – HTD ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I created individual articles for the award categories, and I believe that they should be included in the MMFF template. Consequently, I think that the major awards (Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Picture) should have individual templates from now on. Here's my proposed MMFF template: /info/en/?search=User:001Jrm/sandbox Let me know what you think. :) 001Jrm ( talk) 05:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it about time to MMFF change the template into something like this? 001Jrm ( talk) 06:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)