Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Whilst there are technical issues to be resolved, the Article is an appropriate split (NAC) (non-admin closure) Mayalld (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a Copy & Paste fork/move from List of Pixar awards and nominations with the entire history lost. This constitutes GFDL violation. Non-withstanding the good intentions, there are better ways of splitting articles. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 00:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete since List of Pixar awards and nominations is sufficient and forking was unnecessary; can the nominator clarify the GFDL violations that took place? Was the list's initial edit summary, "moving List of Pixar awards and nominations (section Feature Films) to here because of it's exhaustive length and it's readines for standing on it's own", not clear? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An edit summary is not enough, when 80+% of a page is copied. The edit summary must also be linked, and the original article's history retained. When splitting articles, the minor part should be split with a linked edit summary. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 17:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * keepThis isn't a fork. I'm not a forker and I have a clean record of wikiedits. What I'm trying to do is make wikipedia a better encyclopedia and I have been doing that since November 2007. The page is still underconstruction. There are no copyvio I said in my first edit that it has been moved over from the section of List of Pixar awards and nominations to here. How else should I do this? Articles are splitt everyday and are done in the same way (as far as I know). Per Splitting I should have added splitfrom but I didn't delete the original section yet. The list is still underconstruction and I therefore didn't delete the contents of the feature films in the List of Pixar awards and nominations. I proposed moving List of Pixar awards and nominations to List of Pixar awards and nominations (short films) because the shorts section is long enough for a standalone list. I have improved List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) a lot and it can be featured soon. Just calm down and wait till the page is ready and then delete the features section of the original page. I can also delete the section now and this whole problem would be resolved. But I wanted to wait for someone to post his opinion on moving from List of Pixar awards and nominations to "List of Pixar awards and nominations (short films)" and than I can delete the section and put the diffs in splitfrom. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SPLIT requires the original article to be linked; you omitted that. The split should have been discussed beforehand; such a big change needs consensus, so splitfrom and a spllit notice on the talk page would not have been a bad idea. You can still initiate a a split discussion. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 17:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I split the shorts section (This time the right way). If there is later consensus that the list should be merged back I would be happy to help in the merging. Now I'm BOLD and fix wiki the way I see fit. If the community doesn't like that I split it I would support their decission and have no problem against it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also did as requested per Splitting and added splitfrom to the main article's page. I learned from my mistakes and will in the future add the required templates and edit summaries when splitting articles.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are no further comments here in the next 24 hours, and discussion on the talk page is progressing, I will withdraw my nomination. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 20:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- Hiding T 13:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The methodology is the correct way to split an article. History cann be restored/duplicated by an import which is something any admin can do. Article was created last week and normally (unless there is a pressing reason) we give articles a week or a month to develop. I do not see a serious attempt to resolve the issue without jumping to AFD. I am unsure what this nomination is trying to achieve. -- Cat chi? 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article is fine under [WP:N]. It's a very useful and organized article. It also does a good job of citing its sources. Smallman12q (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, and then consider whether the split is justified on the appropriate talk p. If it was done wrong, do it over right. It is not appropriate to delete articles because of technical errors that are fixable. DGG''' (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also did splitfrom so it's done right and linked the split article in the original articles history. Which ensures that GFDL is applied. I also think that admins can import histories to other articles which ensures the right attribution. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and trout slap all concerned. The parent list is getting large so splitting off featured films or some other content is understandable but it's better to discuss what makes the most sense and possibly draft what the new article would look like to avoid trauma and drama. Sort it out, we want the content. -- Banj e  b oi   03:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also am the biggest contributor to the original page: http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep..it seems the editors have collaborated and resolved the deletion controversy. Well done.--Buster7 (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The problem with this article, as I see it, is that it is long and only going to get much longer. Pixar has been coming out with a feature film every year recently, and each of their features tends to win or be nominated for a lot of awards. If the awards were listed only in the article about the particular film, there wouldn't be a problem, but since Pixar could conceivably continue to release movies forever, this article's length could expand indefinitely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No need to worry. Wikipedia has plenty of room.--Buster7 (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A perfectly justifiable fork that improves readability of both articles. Any GFDL history issues can be addressed retrospectively. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete / Merge. Since the large bulk of Pixar's awards listed in List of Pixar awards and nominations are for feature films, this fork is totally counterproductive. Any information missing from the main article should be incorporated there (note that that article requires some improvement--the list "by award" is incomplete). Bongo  matic  06:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't supposed to be a fork. The List of Pixar awards and nominations was too long. I therefore wanted to split the list into List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) and List of Pixar awards and nominations (short films) and keep List of Pixar awards and nominations for the last section which is by award. The section feature films was deleted before with the edit summary:"split content to List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films)". Now it's back again. If the AFD results in keep I will delete the feature section and add a short summary with a main article link. I hope this AFD results in keep, because I worked a lot on the List_of_Pixar_awards_and_nominations_(feature_films) and this work shouldn't go for nothing. A delete is actually counterproductive and not the right way to do this. I added many references which were missing in the split list and added short summaries for each film. There is also an intro that wasn't there in the original list. Deleting this list is actually, in my opinion, illegal because it is referenced in contrast to the other page. It also isn't a fork because it concerns only the feature films in contrast to the other list which is general about Pixar. When a page becomes too long it should be split and a short summary with a main link should be there (I will do the summary and link if this Afd results in keep). That's the rule of Wikipedia which I followed. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The effort is prodigious, and the article looks good. However, it's hard (for me, anyway) to imagine anyone wanting to look at the information split by short / feature. Why not by award type? Why not by year? Won versus nominated? To me, this sort of information is much better suited to a database that allows one to slice the information in different ways (something WP is ill-suited to). Bongo  matic  16:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Win/Nominated; Year descending/ascending; are all sorting problems which isn't the concern of the Afd. What I suggested with the splitting was to reduce the size of the then long List of Pixar awards and nominations. Shorts and features are completely different as you know. Merging them together wouldn't be right as usually they aren't comparable and don't have the same awards. You can compare Ratatouille with Cars on the awards nominated and won but not Burn-e and Toy Story. One list about the shorts, the other about the features. I don't get why there is such a big dilemma about this (generaly speaking).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep notwithstanding the process, per DGG. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep jeez. I would poop a brick if all of this content got DELETED! At the least, bare minimum, this should be USERFIED. If the organization of this article/its companion articles sucks, they should be reorganized. If this should be moved, move it. Discuss this on the talk pages and make it workable! But, lord, don't delete. Do you really want the brick thing to happen? Really? SMSpivey (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.