Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Emma Stone/Archive 1

Table
Some user is persistently reverting my edit just because instead of nom, I use nominated, just because instead of {| class="wikitable" style="width:70%;" I use awards table (which prevents from adding unnecessary bytes). They also remove the total number of a specific award, e.g. "Stone has been nominated for one Academy Award", when I add it. And Musdan77, you are asking me to give an explanation, what exactly did you provide when you reverted my improvement, "revert unnecessary changes"? They have been used in a number of FLs, and I know now you will say that did not make them featured and stuff. I think you should also remove these "unnecessary changes" from all of the existing featured lists.

You know it becomes difficult when editors like you come across and revert all of my addition, just saying all those are unnecessary. Good luck with your improvement. FrB.TG (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Some user", ? You know me, and I know you, and you should know by now about how to edit and find consensus though working with other editors. First of all, I didn't actually revert your edits (until the last one, which was according to WP:REV). I could have just reverted them, which would have been so much easier and faster, but I painstakingly took the time to only partially revert some and leave some, in order to show good faith and an effort to work with you. That's how editors work together. There are other things I would much rather do than fight with you. First, you don't explain your major changes in the edit summary, then when an (experienced) editor partially reverts your edit, instead of starting an edit war, that's when you are supposed to explain on the talk page why you think your edit should be restored. You've been editing long enough to know the basic rules.


 * You have the burden to explain your changes. You haven't said why you want to change from nom to nominated. I can't see any good reason for it. WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The "wikitable" is so much better than the "awards table". For one thing the column heading should be "Category" not "Award". "Award" is redundant. And I know that the way it is now has column 2 as the work and column 3 as the category, but if it was up to me it would be the opposite, but it's that way because of consensus. Again, that's how editors work together. We can't do just whatever we want. Also, there's not an MOS or project page for awards pages or sections, but there is for filmographies, and those use wikitables – because it is the best way. And yes, it doesn't matter that some FLs have them. That's not a thing that makes or breaks it becoming featured. If you really want to make this a FL, you should start by making the improvements as indicated in the tags on top. And as far as the "Stone has been nominated for one Academy Award" thing, that is just very unnecessary and redundant. However, if you just added those by themselves, I would leave them – as long as you leave the tables as wikis. —Musdan77 (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what your problem is that you call user's edits "just unnecessary". If this is how (the format of yours) the consensus on formatting table is, then why do I fail to see that anywhere but here? In that case, it is you who should gain consensus. As far as improving this list is concerned, adding references is also an improvement, and I was gonna write the lead in the end. And my plan is definitely not to make it FL, because it cannot become so.


 * In the end, I would like to say that, I am tired of fighting with you over some silly format. So you can go ahead, and implement your changes (whatever they are). All I am gonna do is just add refs to the remaining awards and write the lead. Thanks. FrB.TG (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC) Wow, look at your format; years in bold, so much unnecessary space for the year row, so much unnecessary space for references. It is funny how you fight with editors over this format. FrB.TG (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC) I just noticed this: Why the hell did you remove the references I added. Do you know how disruptive that is?


 * First of all, don't quote me saying something I didn't say. In order to have other editors understand and agree with your changes, you have to explain why you think they should be made. Consensus is found per article, not throughout WP – unless it's on an MOS, and as I said, there is no MOS for awards lists. And do I really need to explain WP:BRD word for word? "Years in bold"? That was part of my effort to accept part of your edit changes. You were the one who started adding them (look at the diffs on March 25, if you don't remember). I just made it consistent by doing it for all of it, but I don't really think it should be like that. If you would have followed the rules and guidelines of editing and consensus in the first place, there wouldn't be fighting. There are ways to use the proper wikitable while making it acceptable for everyone. And, I didn't "remove" any references. As I said, I reverted back to the last edit before discussion began, according the rules at WP:REV. While your reversion is just disruptive edit warring. I will leave it for a while, so that you can either revert or partially revert it – if you want to keep the refs (don't expect me to do the hard work that you want done). But, if you don't, I will have to revert it. I could have given you multiple warnings on your talk page, but I didn't. —Musdan77 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So now you are refusing that you said "unnecessary changes"? It is so unbelievable of you how you call my expansion disruptive. And yes, you did remove the references I added while reverting my changes. I don't think I have the patience of endlessly arguing with you who is unreasonably against Awards table. I have linked this talk to RFC; hopefully someone comments. --FrB.TG (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I don't have quite a justifiable reason for the usage so I don't know what I am arguing for. You can restore the previous format, keeping the references of course. Hope this issue is resolved, thanks. --FrB.TG (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well first, I thought you were misquoting what I've said in this discussion, but you misquoted what I put in my ES. And yes, as I've explained above, some of your changes were very unnecessary, but if that was the only problem, I probably wouldn't have revert those things, but because you also gave no explanation and made major format changes at the same time, I had to. Anyway, the bottom line is that you have no interest in correctly, reasonably working with other editors to find consensus. —Musdan77 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that I get what you were saying and I had no clue what I was doing, what you referred to as "unnecessary" (I kinda agree). Isn't this what the consensus is (to maintain status quo)? Please do not accuse of me of having no interest in working with editors; I have frequently collaborated with other editors on among my best efforts here. And yes, like here I had quite a lot of disagreements with other editors, eventually resolving all of them and heading towards the next steps. --FrB.TG (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Again
Just because Teen Choice work differently, doesn't mean that you link categories that you want. That is cherry-picking, inconsistent and WP:OVERLINKING as certain award is already linked to its ceremony or parent article. And how are "two SAG Awards from three noms" necessary and one VMA from seven noms unnecessary (that you reverted)? May I know the reason, ? ツ FrB.TG (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not actually "overlinking" when it goes to a different place. Even so, the MOS says, "Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader." If you're so set on consistency then you may as well remove all links in the category columns -- and that would be permissible if they have references. Issue 2: I don't remember removing "one win from seven noms", but I think that would be OK -- but really none of those is really necessary. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it helps readers count the totals. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The thing is, an encyclopedia is supposed to be worded so that it doesn't need to be updated much -- but if you want to do the work and monitor it then I guess it's OK. —Musdan77 (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)