Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Keke Palmer

Contents of this article should be merged back to Keke Palmer[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus with stale discussion; maintain status quo in the presence of opposition and abscence of consensus. Klbrain (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Geraldo Perez – a WP:SPLITOUT of the 'Awards' table should not have happened in December 2022: the 'Awards' table is not large enough and should be WP:MERGED back to Keke Palmer.

In addition, I strongly, strongly dislike the formatting of the table at this article in comparison to the original format seen at Keke Palmer here. The table should both be restored to Keke Palmer and restored to its former "by year" table listing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the initial split as it was unnecessary and was not discussed. Missed that it got split out again without discussion. I, of course, support a merge back to the original article as the split shouldn't have happened in the first place. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the merge. The current Keke Palmer article has a size of 67k kB, while the awards article (that is also missing a lead) is at 25k kB – almost 100k kB in total, which should result in a split as suggested by WP:SPLIT. The original awards table was also missing all the sources, that makes me wonder: is style more important than WP:Verifiability? --Leo Mercury (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1) Of course, no one is saying the added refs should be removed (that's why I had to abandon the bold merge) – but that has nothing to do with going back to a 'Year'-first table format: the new refs should be kept, but the old table style restored. 2) WP:SPLIT very clearly says ">100 kB of readable prose" should be split. Tables ≠ "readable prose". In fact tables have very little "readable prose", and pretty much do not contribute to the size calculation. Keke Palmer still has a large filmography table (something else that isn't "readable prose") and at this point it's less than 67 kB – this means the article itself it probably only about 50 kB of actual prose content. IOW, even restoring this content back does not make the Keke Palmer article too long.

There's no question in my mind that the content at this article does justify a standalone article – the table simply isn't big enough. It should be merged back, and the Dec. 2022-table formatting restored. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge back with new formatting prosesize says Keke Palmer currently only has 12 Kb of "readable prose size", so well below the amount recommended for a split. Current table has rowspan issues but the award-first formatting it uses seems better than the year-first formatting used in old table, easier to read when all entries for an award are together. Most featured lists for actors uses award-first tables, per Wikipedia:Featured lists#Awards and nominations received by actors or filmmakers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indagate (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a WP:FL skeptic because generally the formatting they chose for those is not the best choice. List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence is one of the few exceptions. But if you're going to do all the awards/noms in one table, organization by 'Year' is vastly preferable (and generally more "readable") than organizing "by award". The latter works best with sections, a la List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence... @Indagate: Can you point to an example of an "all-in-one" awards table organized "by award" with proper use of rowspan that doesn't look awful?! – Unless I can see one that works, I'm definitely going to oppose keeping the new format (which I will point out was an undiscussed stylistic change from the Dec. 2022 version, and I don't believe there was consensus to change that). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Laurence has bad formatting, unnecessary small tables, off-topic background to awards, makes harder to read the actual awards which are most important aspect of that article. Alphabetical seems most logical way to search for an award. James Cameron seems like a good example. Indagate (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like it – too large/too much information for one table (at least presented that way), and I despise doing a "–" over listing "Himself" (or "Herself") for awards that were nominated for/won by themselves... I do wonder how that one would look if organized "by year" (my guess is that it would be better)... But this kind of list-article is exactly why I don't trust the WP:FL process, as no one can convince me that is the best way to present this information. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with "Himself" instead of -, - is less clear especially for screen-readers. Looking through categories, couldn't see a live year-first one-table but this is in archives [1], harder to see the actual awards and read the table. Indagate (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the current version, the idea that one huge table is a better presentation for this kind of information rather than separate sections (per award(s)), a la List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence, is baffling to me... In the case of Euphoria, I think they're probably quickly getting to a point where a WP:SPLITOUT of the awards info is justified, but if/when they do, I hope they go to sections per award(s) like List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence...

Regardless, for the content here, I still think this is a better format to present the information than what is currently at this article. But I do agree that it should be merged back in this case – this table would need to be larger than it is to warrant a standalone article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the merge. While the Keke Palmer article seems to not currently warrant a split—although already loaded with the huge filmography section—it doesn't seem too outrageous to expand the awards section into a separate article, especially when you look at List of awards and nominations received by Amanda Seyfried or List of awards and nominations received by Anya Taylor-Joy, for example, which have similar sizes. Also prefer the current format as it does not provide unnecessary and distracting award show background, like in the Zendaya article, while still allowing awards to easily be sorted by year. The article would most definitely need a proper lead section if it were to stay. Coconutyou3 (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.