Template talk:Metro Manila Film Festival

Template in the future
This really depends on whether it ought to have more "things" in the lists. I suspect "Best Child Performer" might be a thing too far, but other things may be appropriate.

The challenge is that the template is quite tall. But there are pros and cons of individual collapsing sections:


 * pro

The template is less intrusive when on the page


 * con

One interesting use of the template is seeing how many years are bolded when on an actor's page, especially the fact that at least one best actor has also won best director.

Anyway I hope the template is of use. I was just passing by and got carried away! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. This takes being bold to a new level
I agree that it is entirely my "fault" that I bothered to spend a good amount of time creating a decent template. Normally, when one spends time performing a thankless job one does not expect thanks, but one does not expect it to be torn up and trampled underfoot without at least some discussion.

So, my talk page contains a "thanks, gosh you've been really helpful, but I've torn your work up and stomped on it" comment, which is really not very pleasant to receive.

So, since there has been no discussion, thus no consensus building at all, I am about to revert the template to the way I created it.

Now, how about a proper consensus building? Or is demotivating a fellow editor more fun? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. My edits were for clear reasons which I even went out of my way to explain on your talk page. You can choose to take it personally, but that was not my intent. I won't restore my edits for the meantime, but if you want to put the matter to a larger consensus, please feel free to. When you have cooled down enough to actually discuss the substance of the edits rather than your personal opinion of them, please do let me know. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please make no assumptions about my state of mind. My talk page was, as you see, an imperfect place to discuss this.  We are speaking of the substance of the template.  Do not quote the merciless editing thing to me.  Building consensus is a major tenet of Wikipedia.  You were the one who made a draconian deletion, so you are also perfectly at liberty to put the matter to a larger consensus.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I share the concerns raised by Girolamo Savonarola; it really isn't appropriate to link to actor and film articles in such a way, because, as previously stated, they can easily be seen as articles for that year's award. However, rather than simply remove this content from the template (though I have removed all entries that didn't have a link; such templates are meant to navigate between articles, not be exhaustive lists) I have reformatted it in a way that makes it much clearer which articles are being linked to. As an aside, there was nothing wrong whatsoever in the edits made by Girolamo Savonarola. WP:OWN is a policy, and one must always assume good faith when such edits are made. PC78 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I never said I owned the template. I said that consensus should be built.  This is the start of building that consensus.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You seemed to take it very personally, and some of your comments were unwarranted. This was hardly taking "being bold to a new level". Concensus does not need to be forged prior to every single edit. PC78 (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But before draconian edits, yes, it does. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

a substantial improvement
My concept was imperfect. Using dates to link to the underlying articles was correct in a pedantic manner (0.8 probability) but also potentially misleading. I feel that the current format, with the names of the winners logged against their dates is a substantial enhancement.

This gives both navigational ease and also strong value to the template. I see this as an excellent development. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer leaving just the MMFF years in the template
Maybe to add to a possible consensus, I prefer leaving just the MMFF years in the template and leave out the major awards winners sections. In particular, I prefer Girolamo Savonarola's revision. --seav (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see just the years as a much less complete navigational aid then the current revision. This is, after all, a navigational template and, as such, is intended, surely, to be of use and interest to help non specialist surfers enjoy a great deal more information than would be given by a simple, year based template.
 * These things are not for the editors but the visitors. We, the experts, can navigate wherever we wish with ease, but Wikipedia is designed for a far wider audience than its editors. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at it at the point when all of the winning films, actors, actresses, etc. get to have their own articles and would necessitate links in the current template's format. When that time comes, the navigational aid just becomes an unwieldy list of indiscriminate links to tangentially-related articles that just happen to be connected to MMFF (especially the actors and actresses). Furthermore, I question plastering this big template on all the linked articles on the actors and actresses. Vilma Santos is so much more than her winning acting awards in the MMFF and yet there's a big honking template at the bottom of her article which gives the impression that her entertainment career is thanks to the MMFF. --seav (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How about a compromise? Remove the links to the person awards (acting and directing) and just leave the best picture awards? These films are after all specifically produced for the festival but the actors and directors' lives do not revolve around the MMFF. --seav (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure. It's not that the actors and directors lives revolve around MMFF,but that it is an interesting adjunct to their lives.  The template draws folk in to discopver the wealth of information.  I'd never have learnt that a politician was also an actor, for example,without the template.  I think is is by no means indiscriminate in that usage.
 * I'm not wedded to the template, I simply started it. What I want it to be us truly useful.  It is reasaonably small effort to keep it up to date.  The festival is annual,after all.
 * With regard to "big honking template" it does collapse! Maybe one can set it by default to the collapsed state. Beyond my knowledge.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

THis should really linked on the annual festival links, then separate navboxes should be created for each award category. This navbox is too unwieldy at its current state. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 15:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Individual Major Awards templates
I created individual articles for the award categories, and I believe that they should be included in the MMFF template. Consequently, I think that the major awards (Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Picture) should have individual templates from now on. Here's my proposed MMFF template: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:001Jrm/sandbox Let me know what you think. :) 001Jrm (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Changing the MMFF template?
Is it about time to MMFF change the template into something like this? 001Jrm (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)