Talk:2011 Cannes Film Festival

Renaming of article
It seems to me that this article should be renamed "64th Cannes Film Festival" as it is refered to by edition number rather than year on the current official website;

Official posters from the last two years also use edition number rather than year in the title;

What do others think? Mutt (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are used on the official website and seem to be equally official. So it's more about consistency, and I see no real reason for a move. It would be a lot of meaningless work to update every article that links to one of the 64 editions. Better to use that time and energy to improve the actual content. Smetanahue (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 Cannes Film Festival. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515065818/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/article/58041.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/article/58041.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420024421/http://www.quinzaine-realisateurs.com/2011-selection-h74.html to http://www.quinzaine-realisateurs.com/2011-selection-h74.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not overdo it with tables
A couple of tables for the top 2 sections (Competition and Un Certain Regard) would be fine. The rest however doesn;t have to be all tabled. It bloats the page unecessarily and doesn't help very much in any practical way I can imagine. Is the sorting function so important to justify table format? A list folded in two columns takes up a minimal space and is very friendly to smaller width screens. I mean, use an 800px screen and see what happens. Multiple cells break in several lines, making the whole page much much longer. One looses the sense of what one is looking at. Scrolling and scrolling when a list would have it all available in a minimal length. Just compare this page on a smaller screen with the 2006 Cannes Film Festival. Can we please agree on a restrained use of tables in such awards pages? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 15:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Appreciate all your hard work with this, but I have to disagree. The lists on the 2006 article just don't look right with that high-lighter pen style formatting. Plus the sortable tables have become the de-facto standard across all film festival articles, not just the Cannes ones.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem removing the highlighter formatting from the lists. The rest is very incosiderate for anyone that doesn't have a wide screen. I am well aware of the other film festivals. In some cases the total table width is limited in % just to fit an image to the right of it. Try this in a small screen. The image goes under the table and the table width remains limited, squeezing everything even more. I am trying to keep as much of the "de-facto standard", but some mistakes have to go for all these articles. What is a section called "Key"? Is there anything in MOS that permits for such an invention? A key has to go under the table, not have a section of its own. So fine, no highlights in lists and everything in sortable tables. I can go with this, even though I think it's inconsiderate towards many users. But if the sorting is left half finished or not done, then this function remains practically useless for the reader. If something must be considered de-facto standard, it'd better be a correct practice. Hoverfish Talk 18:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Done, all highlighting gone from all articles. Hoverfish Talk 19:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)