Talk:Andrew Carnegie Medals for Excellence in Fiction and Nonfiction

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Carnegie Medals for Excellence in Fiction and Nonfiction. 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/20150924015542/http://midco.net/news/read/category/entertainment/article/the_associated_press-anthony_doerr_wins_carnegie_medal_for_fiction-ap to http://www.midco.net/news/read/category/entertainment/article/the_associated_press-anthony_doerr_wins_carnegie_medal_for_fiction-ap

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) 06:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Change of layout for "Winners and finalists" section
I'd like to suggest a change of the layout (as well as a rearrangement of the name) of the "Winners and finalists" section to be in line with the style of the corresponding section in the article for the Baillie Gifford Prize, which I think is eminently more readable; see my Userspace for a draft. I'd suggest the page would also then need to use the template. — Hugh (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Please do. The tables mashes long book titles into little boxes making it painful to read due to the inconsistent word wrapping. This table is also complex to maintain for novice or even mid-level editors - anything to make it easier to add new entries. This is how it used to look. Note the Fiction and Non-Fiction breaks are a bold word, section headers seems too much. -- Green  C  23:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I hadn't realised that was the way it had initially been formatted. I suppose there are a few articles which have retained this layout. I also hadn't realised you could use bold text as an ersatz subheading -- I must have been interpreting the rules on bold text too rigidly. I think some discussion at WP:PRIZE of how the MOS on tables applies to lists such as this is in order. — Hugh (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I fundamentally disagree, it's consistently formatted with all such other useful lists. If you wish to tweak the current formats, that's fine, but don't, whatever you do, revert to the original format noted by GreenC as that is completely unhelpful. I will work on the Baillie Gifford Prize  article too now as you have pointed it out.  Most of these literary prize articles are horrendously formatted and unhelpful to our readers.  We should standardise them against featured lists which have the approval of the community, not just a couple of users.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll split the table into fiction and non-fiction tables which will overcome all the concerns for our readers. If our editors can't maintain simple tables, then perhaps they shouldn't be editing the articles in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. I think the split tables are a significant improvement, but fundamentally disagree that tables for small collections of data such as this are more readable than lists such as I had proposed—especially when the information is laid out horizontally like this. After all, there's no need to do sorting on this data; it's not scientific. — Hugh (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * .. called a WP:BULLET .. "the most common list type on Wikipedia". -- Green  C  02:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Could we at least agree, perhaps, that the references do not logically necessitate their own column? (p.s. I understand that the references apply to the whole group of winners, but surely—as I've interpreted it in my proposal—they apply most obviously to the winner?) — Hugh (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the common styling in featured lists is as I have implemented here. There's no reason to clutter the text by jarringly adding references right next to the subject, the same line is perfectly sufficient.  Bullet lists for lists which are more than a handful of elements are extremely poor to look at, difficult to navigate and logically hard to follow, as opposed to the tabular format which gathers the pertinent information together in a much more logical fashion.  And I don't recall being uncivil, just direct, if you don't like that, well that's a shame.   P.S. Sorting can be done on any kind of list, they needn't be "scientific" for the readers to wish to re-sort the elements within.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You've got the same cites defined in multiple places eg. 13 & 17 -- Green  C  12:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a problem. The markup caters for that, as you can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would you have the same citation defined multiple times? That's what the "ref name=" mechanism is for. It's standard across wikipedia to combine refs. I don't see anything in the WP:HARVARD docs about using the same ref multiple times. --  Green  C  13:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't you just "fix" it rather than unnecessarily tag it? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)