Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)

Excessive removal of several categories
The removal of several categories within the main article has become more excessive and unnecessary resulting to stripping the film out of these important categories in which its removal needs a lot of explanation and detail. Saiph121 (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the assessment that the removal was excessive.
 * If you run the Special:CategoryTree tool you can see which Categories are child Cats and if these Cats are listed at the article then the parent Cats are redundant. The editing guideline of WP:CAT states:
 * The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.
 * and WP:CATDEF states:
 * A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having.
 * so
 * Parent Category:2010s romance films is redundant since Child Category:2010s romantic drama films is listed.
 * Parent Category:American films is redundant since Child Category:American 3D films is listed.
 * Parent Category:American fantasy films is redundant since Child Category:American fantasy adventure films & Child Category:American musical fantasy films are listed.
 * Parent Category:Films based on adaptations is redundant since Child Category:Films based on Beauty and the Beast is listed.
 * Category:Films shot in London is incorrect, the movie was shot at Shepperton Studios in Surrey. The assertion of this Category that the movie was shot in London is an unsourced claim.
 * Parent Category:Films shot in Surrey is redundant since Child Category:Films shot at Shepperton Studios is listed.
 * Parent Category:Musical film remakes is redundant since Child Category:Films based on musicals based on films is listed.
 * Parent Category:Films based on adaptations is redundant since Child Category:Films based on musicals based on films is listed.


 * Shearonink (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Again,, it seems you simply do not understand the guideline. Every article in a daughter/child category is already in the parent category.

For example: If you check Category:Films based on musicals based on films, at the bottom you will see that the category itself is in Category:Musical film remakes. The wide-standing consensus, as reflected in the editing guideline, is that Wikipedia generally does not include articles in both the daughter/child category and the parent category.

If you do not understand, you may ask for another explanation of what this means and why that is the guideline. As an alternative, you could simply stop editing categories. You cannot, however, simply ignore the guideline and the repeated explanations from multiple editors. If you continue to do so, I will open another discussion at AN/I asking for editing restrictions specifically prohibiting you from editing categories. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Then I'm suggesting you that we establish a major consensus in resolving these disputed categories as these aforementioned categories are not exactly redundant and again, i'm stating that you're stripping these important categories of the film. Saiph121 (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The consensus below clearly favors following the guideline. With the exception of non-diffusing categories, parent and child categories should not be added to an article. Another editor restored my edit earlier today. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * And now you've added them back. Why? Because that's what you do: You insist the guideline is wrong, the consensus is biased and you are right. You demand that we have a discussion as to whether or not Wikipedia should follow Wikipedia's guidelines, you ignore the discussion, the discussion decides that yes, Wikipedia should follow Wikipedia's guidelines and someone makes the change to put the article in line with those guidelines, then you revert it to your version. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to keep some semblance of order. When there is a dispute, we have consensus. When we have someone who ignores the policies, guidelines and consensus, we ask them to follow them. When they refuse, we block them from editing. When they still won't collaborate, we ban them from the project. Guess what? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, these categories are still highly important on the film and if you were considering on removing such categories that you called "parent and child categories" you might wanna do the same thing on other films with that same description. But that would be a disadvantage to the film in which every film's categories are highly important and removing such categories leaves it no substantial information. Saiph121 (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment re: categories of this film

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article have both Child Categories and Parent Categories listed? (See discussion at Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film).) Shearonink (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose. The Categories listed below should only have the Child Category included. Shearonink (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless the parent category is tagged as being non-defused (see ), articles should only be in the subcategory. Category:American films is tagged as non-diffusing so that parent category should be included. The rules in WP:CAT are pretty clear so this should not be an issue requiring formation of a local consensus to override the general rules. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, with the exception noted as non-diffusing. As our editing guideline makes very clear, there is no reason to include both parent and child categories. The editing guideline is the global consensus and there is no reason given to override the guideline in this particular case. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This is how I would categorize (striking out the categories which I think should be removed):
 * Parent Category:American films & Child Category:American 3D films (per non-diffusing argument below)
 * Parent Category:2010s romance films & Child Category:2010s romantic drama films (per WP:NARROWCAT)
 * Parent Category:American fantasy films and Child Category:American fantasy adventure films & Child Category:American musical fantasy films (per WP:NARROWCAT)
 * Parent Category:Films based on adaptations and Child Category:Films based on Beauty and the Beast (Both of these should be retained because I dispute that they are parent and child categories; being based on Beauty and the Beast alone doesn't necessarily imply the film is based on an adaptation i.e. the 1991 film *is* an adaptation, not *based* on an adaptation)
 * Parent Category:Films shot in Surrey and Child Category:Films shot at Shepperton Studios (straightforward parent-child relationship presuming filming did not occur in Surrey outside of Shepperton)
 * Parent Category:Musical film remakes and Child Category:Films based on musicals based on films (How does the child category apply in this case? According to the infobox this film is based on the 1991 film and the original story, so which musical is it based on??)
 * Parent Category:Films based on adaptations and Child Category:Films based on musicals based on films . (See question directly above)
 * The categorization seems to be all over the place at this article. I broadly support the proposal but in some cases the child categories simply don't apply IMO, so let's take care we don't mandate this article into erroneous categories. Betty Logan (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post, makes sense to me, I do confess that Categories are not an area I have any great WP-expertise in.  I just know that the ongoing constant addition of the various categories at this article has been disheartening to me as an editor to witness. Shearonink (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
This RFC focused on the following Categories (which have been removed and restored multiple times in December 2017).
 * Parent Category:2010s romance films & Child Category:2010s romantic drama films
 * Parent Category:American films & Child Category:American 3D films
 * Parent Category:American fantasy films and Child Category:American fantasy adventure films & Child Category:American musical fantasy films
 * Parent Category:Films based on adaptations and Child Category:Films based on Beauty and the Beast
 * Parent Category:Films shot in Surrey and Child Category:Films shot at Shepperton Studios
 * Parent Category:Musical film remakes and Child Category:Films based on musicals based on films
 * Parent Category:Films based on adaptations and Child Category:Films based on musicals based on films.

Shearonink (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Note It is current practice to include the main nationality category on film articles regardless of whether child categories are included. This is standard for the four categories outlined at WikiProject_Film/Categorization. Taking this into account the article should not be removed from Category:American films regardless of which child categories it is susbequently added to. The rest of the categories listed here are fair game though. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction &, I've struck that line through. Shearonink (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Well that was productive. The unanimous conclusion here is that we should not include parent categories when diffusing child categories are in place. (Thanks for the patient explanation on non-diffusing cats, Betty.) Saiph121, of course, has restored the categories against the consensus. I assume I'll need to take this to AN/I again. I'll write it up tonight unless someone else feels moved to handle it before then. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes... the editor who has been engaged in their own ongoing long-simmering WP:IDHT disruptive edit war about Parent/Child Categories for this article, who has stated repeatedly in their edit summaries "See Talk" hasn't contributed to the RFC or to this discussion despite being directly notified of it on their talkpage. Shearonink (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are there any valid objections to my going ahead now and adjusting the Categories according to our discussion here and according to my understanding of 's excellent explanation above? Do I have to wait for the RfC to be closed? Shearonink (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If edits again without responding here, go ahead. --Neil N  talk to me 20:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I will - since he already has . Earlier today he again restored deleted categories.... Shearonink (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Whatever in these categories that you called as "parent categories" or "child categories", such removal of these highly important categories is an detrimental to the film and its qualities. Futhermore, it should be known that other films are also using that same kind of description of these categories much to the disadvantage on this film. Saiph121 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is now being discussed at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 01:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is going to be SNOW support for removing the genuine parent categories and now Saiph121 is out of the loop for a week this RFC may seem a tad redundnant, but it would be great if we could get further input on the possibly inapplicable child catgeories I have highlighted above in my survey comment. Betty Logan (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused on two of them, the rest make perfect sense and have my support.
 * The first one I don't quite grok is "Parent Category:Films based on adaptations and Child Category:Films based on Beauty and the Beast (Both of these should be retained because I dispute that they are parent and child categories; being based on Beauty and the Beast alone doesn't necessarily imply the film is based on an adaptation i.e. the 1991 film *is* an adaptation, not *based* on an adaptation)". As I read this, it is saying that the 1740 work, Beauty and the Beast, is an adaptation. If so, it's a rather sloppy understanding of "adaptation", IMO. If that is the intention, I agree the second category should not be in the parent category (which we should correct). Anyone have a different understanding here?
 * The second one I'm not sure I'm getting is "Parent Category:Musical film remakes and Child Category:Films based on musicals based on films (How does the child category apply in this case? According to the infobox this film is based on the 1991 film and the original story, so which musical is it based on??)" My read of this refers to an earlier attempt at this film based on the 1994 musical, briefly noted under "Production". If that's the case, I'm fairly certain it does not beong here, as that attempt was apparently completely tossed. If there is some other read intended here, I don't see it. Anyone have anything here? If not, I'm completely with Betty on this one. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-notable awards
I hereby award this film the Meaningless Talk Page Association's Grand Jury Award. Should we include this in the article? Of course not. Why not? Because the MTPA is nothing and no body cares. How about if I start a website for it? Still no. How do we decide?

The Oscars, OTOH, we clearly would include. Why? Because the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is a notable organization, for starters. Next, when they nominate people for stuff, independent reliable sources swarm to the announcements and fall all over themselves to announce the nominees. Then independent reliable sources debate teh finer points of who should win for "Best Second Unit Catering". When the awards' ceremony is held, the reliable sources are there again and cover every little hiccough and tittle on the evening news and in the morning papers. Wikipedia editors update the lede of Joe Blow's article to note that he is no longer an "actor", he is now an "Academy Award winning actor" and we create redirects for the hiccoughs (cf. Adele Dazeem).

We currently have "awards" from non-notable organizations, citing their press releases, websites and the cocktail napkins they made the nominations on. These are trivial. Comments before I remove them? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please remove them. Basically if the award itself does not have an article it is not a notable award and we should not be listing them. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I rather expect we will end up removing them. As an editor has already been edit-warring and socking to keep them in, I'm waiting for a few comments or a few days first. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The history of this situation is an editor adding something, having it reverted and the original editor (signed in or out) edit warring to restore it. Discussion on the talk page supports removing it (the original editor doesn't comment) and it's removed again. The original editor restores it again and ignores or misunderstands the applicable guideline and argue to put it back.

On this one, we're up to the original editor not commenting, so far.

To try to nip this one in the bud, I'm going to move s-l-o-w-l-y here. I will start with removing the non-notable awards from the non-notable "International Online Cinema Awards", sourced to an archived forum posting and see how it goes. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Bin the ones that don't have an article. If you want to remove those that do have an article then the correct course would be to nominate them at AfD and challenge their notability. Betty Logan (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Somehow i'm questioning why some of the other awards were being removed. Shouldn't this same action be also be applied on Wonder Woman as it contains non-notable awards within their accolade section? Saiph121 (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would advocate remvoing them from Wonder Woman too. Betty Logan (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Several have also popped up for Coco, Get Out, Lady Bird, etc. Looks like I'll need to do some digging. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The removal of awards from some of the notable film critics organizations including the Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association, San Diego Film Critics Society, Chicago Film Critics Association, St. Louis Film Critics Association, Women Film Critics Circle Awards, Seattle Film Critics Society, Houston Film Critics Society, and the Artios Awards within the main article leaves with a lot of explanation on why are they being excessively removed while other films had these organizations being listed on their accolades section as these were notable awards. Saiph121 (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it does not "leave a lot of explanation". Three out of four editors who have commented on the issue agree that non-notable awards should not be included. That is a consenus. If you disagree with the consensus, you may discuss the issue and attempt to find a consensus to keep them.
 * I am going to remove them again to reflect the current consensus. You may discuss the issue here. You may request comments. You may file a request at the Dispute resolution noticeboard (caution here, per your earlier warnings). If, on the other hand, you choose to repeatedly restore your preferred version against the current consensus, I will start another discussion at AN/I. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In light of current consensus dispute in relation to the aforementioned awards belonging to the notable and credible film critics organizations, i'm requesting a new consensus to determine that these are classified as notable awards and Not non-notable awards. Those film organizations that were not notable or have no pages on Wikipedia like for example, "Los Angeles Online Film Critics Society" or the "Phoenix Film Critics Society" shouldn't be considered on the main article on its accolades section. Saiph121 (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It shouldn’t even be a debate, the critics groups with articles can be added into the accolades section, and exclude the ones without one. These critics awards are part of the annual Oscar race. If editors feels these particular groups don’t meet notability guidelines, then as suggested take it to AFD. Until then, the ones with articles should be included. Rusted AutoParts 04:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The current consensus is that only those with non-redirect articles on Wikipedia should be listed. In other words, only notable awards are notable.
 * Yes, local, online-only film critics groups, labor unions, bloggers, talk show hosts, etc. may or may not be notable as organizations/individuals. However, we do not necessarily consider every award they give out to be noteworthy. What is your proposed standard for inclusion? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The point on the proposed standard on the inclusion of these aforementioned awards that belonged to these film critics organizations is that these awards are considered as noteworthy with these awards and nominations being given by notable and credible critic groups which usually happen in awards season and furthermore, every film had an accolades listed with awards from every notable critic groups that have direct-linked articles within Wikipedia, so these awards being mentioned should as considered as notable awards with the ones with direct-linked articles within Wikipedia. Those critic groups that have no direct-linked articles within Wikipedia should not be included. Saiph121 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but are you actually trying to say with your sentence above:
 * The point is that these awards are considered as noteworthy since these awards are given by notable, credible groups and, besides, every film [already] had an accolades [section] with awards from critic groups that already have Wikipedia articles, so these (other) awards should (just be) considered as notable as the awards with Wikipedia articles.
 * but then you say:
 * critic groups with[out] Wikipedia articles [about them] should not be included.
 * What? These two sentences (especially taken together) don't quite make sense. Shearonink (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The award itself having an article is a quick filter for inclusion. If the only source of information about this film getting their award is a primary source hosted by the awarding organization then it is a pretty good filter for non-inclusion. A notable award will be widely covered by multiple reliable sources not tied to either the recipient or the awarder. An award with that level of coverage will likely have an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Award that has that level of coverage has an article in it like those aforementioned film critics organizations listed above which are part of its inclusion on the main article's accolade section regardless whether it won an award or nomination. Saiph121 (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, so this sentence's meaning is:
 * The award has an article like those previously mentioned organizations listed above...
 * I just give up, this one also makes no sense. I'm not trying to be a jerk here I just can't figure out what in the world this editor is actually trying to say. Shearonink (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What i am trying implied with the message is that the awards being given from these film critic organizations should be included in the main article of the accolade section only that had Wikipedia pages. Those that don't have a Wikipedia pages should not be included. Now does this message make sense now? Saiph121 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not everything that is notable has an article yet. I'd be willing to consider stuff without an article if the film's getting that award had enough significant coverage such that WP:GNG was substantially met - "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Outlets tied to the film, the organization issuing the award or basic published lists wouldn't count towards that. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Only consider listing the awards that are notable like what I've stated earlier and don't include awards that have no direct-linked articles to Wikipedia. Saiph121 (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your wording is rather confusing here. At different times you seem to be arguing to include those where the organization has an article. In this most recent comment (and others) you seem to be arguing for the current consensus: to include only those where the award has an article.
 * At the moment, we have various guilds and labor unions who have started awards for their members. If a labor union gives an award to a member who works for Ford, we don't include that award in Ford Motor Company because the award is not noteworthy, even if the union is.
 * Blogs and online magazines might be notable for any number of reasons, including lawsuits and controversies, writers who were notable for other reasons, etc. This does not mean that anyone cares about their awards. How do we know if anyone does care? Significant coverage in independent reliable sources (which is exactly what is needed to write an article about the award).
 * If an award is notable, write a sourced stub for the award. If an award isn't notable, no one is taking note of the award: it's a tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying that the awards from every notable and credible film critic organizations that have articles on Wikipedia are considered as a "non-notable awards"? I'm going to detail on these film critic organizations that have been deleted in the accolades section of the main article and be provided with its sources:
 * Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association
 * San Diego Film Critics Society
 * Chicago Film Critics Association
 * St. Louis Film Critics Association
 * Women Film Critics Circle
 * Seattle Film Critics Society
 * Houston Film Critics Society
 * Casting Society of America

Now these film critic organizations had direct-linked articles to Wikipedia and regardless that the accolades section of the main article had won awards or had nominations, the film critic organizations that I've listed are considered as credible and notable and should be listed back to the accolades section of the main article. Again, those film critic organizations that don't have direct-linked articles to Wikipedia should not be included. Saiph121 (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I am not saying that "the awards from every notable and credible film critic organizations that have articles on Wikipedia are considered as a 'non-notable awards'". While there are certainly notable organizations that are not "credible", whether or not they are "credible" is not a meaningful question here. What I am saying is that there are notable organizations who hand out awards that are not necessarily noteworthy. I am saying "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability....Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included." I did not write the MOS. I do, however, respect it as demonstrating the broader consensus. I also respect consensus. If the consensus that develops here is that this film is somehow different from every other film and should be treated differently and, as a result, we should list non-notable awards from labor unions and self-promoted groups of bloggers, I'll accept that and suggest that the MOS be updated to reflect the special status of this film. Other than that, I whink the non-notable awards you have added here (and at Wonder Woman and several other films) should be removed. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the point with these film critic organizations is that these organizations that were listed above had awards or nominations that were considered as noteworthy, i mean that you look at these example of those film accolades such as List of accolades received by Coco (2017 film), List of accolades received by The Shape of Water (film), and List of accolades received by Lady Bird (film); these example of these mentioned accolades from these three films all featured accolades that they received from every film critic organizations including the ones that I've listed above although those accolades from Coco had film critic organizations that don't have a Wikipedia page which should be the case in the accolades section of Beauty and the Beast main article that film critic organizations that don't have a Wikipedia page should not included in the accolades section while the film critic organizations that have a Wikipedia page should be included. Saiph121 (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If I am understanding what you are saying (which is often something of a struggle), you feel that the contested awards should be included here because you* also added them in other articles. (*In addition to editing as "Saiph121", you frequently edit without signing in. Often, you make an edit as one, then use the other to restore the edit when another editor reverts.) Yes, other articles exist. Some of them are nearly perfect and stand as shining examples of what Wikipedia should try to be. Others are horrible messes that we should probably delete and start over. Most articles are somewhere in between. By choosing a small number of articles that you have been editing and deciding to emulate them here, you are magnifying and spreading errors you have made in other articles. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do in emulating these articles regards those awards from film critic organizations, i'm only making a comparison to see what i'm really proving that awards from these film critic organizations should be added to the main article of the accolades section, only that have Wikipedia Pages. Case in point, i am not magnifying and spreading errors in other articles. Saiph121 (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My two cents on this awards proliferation:
 * I agree that the organizations giving out the awards with Wikipedia articles are notable.
 * However, that does not make the awards themselves notable. If these awards handed out by local critics' groups do not receive sufficient national or international coverage then these various awards should not be added to film articles (enough coverage for the awards to be considered notable - many or most people interested in films have heard of the Oscars, the SAG Awards, the Golden Globes, and so on).  At some point, adding Every. Single. Award. Ever. Given. Out. To. A. Movie. to that movie's Wikipedia article?....doesn't all that become fancruft? and doesn't seem to add to the meaningful knowledge about the film. Per the Wikipedia policy page What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  At some point there will probably be an editorial consensus of "enough is enough". Shearonink (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely Not a fancruft. Everything that i'm referring with entirely is the awards being given by these film critic organizations that I've listed above to be rightfully proven with that these are exactly a notable awards from these film critic organization that only have Wikipedia pages. Right now i'm making an example at the main article which i recently reinstating awards that were wrongly deleted and to show what i'm implying to these reasons as well clearing the confusion out of it. Saiph121 (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The editing guideline is clear: "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability....Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included." So far, the consensus here clearly supports that. That you have again seen fit to ignore the consensus is troubling. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So this consensus is clearly stating that all awards from film critic organizations especially the notable organizations that were listed in this talk and have a Wikipedia article are absolutely not included? Clearly this argument on this disputed consensus is getting way too long. Would be better if a request comments would be filed ASAP as the Dispute resolution noticeboard has been unsuccessful in resolving this dispute. Saiph121 (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your statement is not clear. I honestly can't tell if you understand the consensus or not. That said, the consensus here is to not include awards that are not notable. DRN doesn't seem to be heading your way either.
 * Before taking this to another forum, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy on forum shopping. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, I've already been repeatably stating that those film critic organizations that have been listed above are considered as notable and have the notability. Saiph121 (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I stated above and at the DR board, in the case of awards where only the organization has an article you have have to make a case for the significance of the award because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. In these cases the significance must be established through WP:Secondary reliable sources. Nobody is going to support you at the moment because you have not put forward any evidence backing your poistion. As I suggested at the DR board, you need to make a list of all the awards you wish to add to the table along with secondary sources to establish their significance. Then and only then can impartial editors make an objective decision. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You should really know that these awards from those film critic organizations that have been listed above in which i stated that these awards are notable and its significance can be traced to the sources that I've linked above within the list in which the awards and nominations in every category were being bestowed on the film and again, i'm going list down the film critic organizations' awards that were given separately.


 * Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association
 * Best Motion Capture Performance - nominated
 * Best Production Design - nominated


 * San Diego Film Critics Society
 * Best Production Design - nominated
 * Best Visual Effects - runner-up
 * Best Costume Design - won
 * Best Use of Music - nominated


 * Chicago Film Critics Association
 * Best Art Direction - nominated


 * St. Louis Film Critics Association
 * Best Production Design - nominated
 * Best Visual Effects - nominated


 * Women Film Critics Circle
 * Best Family Film - nominated


 * Seattle Film Critics Society
 * Best Costume Design - nominated


 * Houston Film Critics Society
 * Best Original Song - nominated

You see, these were the awards and nominations of the categories from every film critics organizations in which the film was being mentioned with and the sources that were being provided above had its major significance basing on the categories that this film is indicated and with the sources to serve as an evidence to reinstated it back to the accolade section. Saiph121 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Art Directors Guild Awards 2017, Costume Designers Guild Awards 2017, Chicago Film Critics Association Awards 2017, Houston Film Critics Society Awards 2017, San Diego Film Critics Society Awards 2017, St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association Awards 2017, 16th Visual Effects Society Awards, Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association Awards 2017 all have bluelink articles so should not be removed per this "consensus". For the rest of these critics groups, like suggested should be taken to the AFD. But to suddenly decide that awards like Casting Society of America (Artios Awards), Hollywood Film Awards, etc. are not notable for this article when they have been included in dozens of FLs makes no sense. Not to mention that this should really have been discussed at WP:MOSFILM or at least notified that project. - Brojam (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

has now returned to restore possibly the single weakest example here, "AARP's Movies for Grownups Awards". Again, the organization is notable, the award is not.

Does anyone feel this particular award for this particular article should, for some reason, be exempted from the guideline which says that non-notable awards should not be included? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The notion that the AARP's Movies for Grownups Awards as well the Golden Reel Awards being labelled as an "non-notable awards" are clearly incorrect and wrong as they are considered as notable given the fact that these awards have been featured in other films such as List of accolades received by Lady Bird (film), List of accolades received by Dunkirk and List of accolades received by Coco (2017 film). Furthermore, these awards itself have articles (being described as bluelink articles) in Wikipedia which makes it notable. Saiph121 (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken.


 * An error in another article does not mean we should make the same mistake here. Those awards should be removed from any other article they are found in. This has been explained to you several times. You don't understand.


 * AARP is notable. It has it's own article. AARP's Movies for Grownups Awards is not notable, it does not have it's own article. This has been explained to you several times. You don't understand. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 12:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, you're the one that really don't understand what i am really trying to explain. Other films had the AARP's Movies for Grownups Awards and the Golden Reel Awards being listed in their accolades section and aside from the fact that these two have articles, they're considered as bluelinked articles with notability. Saiph121 (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Once there was a horse. That was a long time ago. The flesh decayed and the bones have been pounded into a fine powder. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the vaguely horse-shaped depression on the ground. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with User:SummerPhDv2.0. When there are sooooo many significant awards, as well as pertinent industry-based awards, I'm not sure how much encyclopedic benefit there is in including some unrelated organization's little-known award. It seems the very kind of thing the MOS is designed to filter out. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with and .  Also. . You have repeatedly used the position that other things exist as a justification to include All. These. Awards. But. Just because other things exist does not make those Other Things an official Wikipedia guideline or policy that must apply across the entire encyclopedia. There is this thing called consensus that governs, on an individual article-by-article basis, which awards should be included in individual articles about films.  There is not a consensus to include All. These. Awards. in this article. I suggest you take SummerPhDv2.0's advice - back away and drop the stick. Shearonink (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Not quite Shearonink. The notion stating that all awards that has bluelinked articles with notability doesn't mean that these awards should to be included entirely. The fact is that only the awards that has bluelinked articles with notability but has greater recognition are the only ones that are to be included. Saiph121 (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You disagree. We get it. We're done here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2019
Matthewhedrich99 (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Can you please change to Lumiere being described as a footman because he is actually an assistant butler?
 * ❌ I can't find anywhere in the article where the character is described as a footman. Nthep (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)